The CT shooting and gun control
-
BoatShoes
Don't want a list of everyone who has them. You and others who agree with you undermine the genuine concerns of the libertarian position by building such straw men IMHO.Cleveland Buck;1432984 wrote:Their position is that firearms in the hands of their subjects limits their power, so if they can't completely ban private ownership of guns yet without provoking civil war, they at least want a list of everyone who has them. -
BoatShoes
Or, maybe we're just pragmatists. The government has not failed completely in state abortion and tax administration in the way it has with guns. And, for that matter, the FEDs did nationalize abortion laws when they determined that every woman has a right to an abortion in every state in the country and that the state's cannot place an undue burden on them to prevent them from getting them.majorspark;1433228 wrote:This is the problem the central planners have been fighting since the founding. They took what they could get to get the union contract signed and have been pushing the pendulum towards national rule ever since. The balance of power sucks for them. The balance of power between the three coequal branches of the federal government is tough enough. But the balance of state government power against each other and states against the federal government has been the wrench in the gears of the elitist grand wizards of societal bliss born to usher us into national utopia.
States pass laws attempting to protect the lives of babies in the womb by state regulatory laws. Yet the citizens of those state have the opportunity to leave the state and as you say render the law of the state "ineffective". Where is your outcry for state laws in lets say Mississippi or North Dakota? 10's of millions of Americans believe that millions more children will be killed in the womb than the classroom.
Ask this guy if he thinks state gun laws are ineffective. Granted his sentence was eventually commuted by NJ governor Christie but had Corzine been reelected he would still be in prison.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/12/gun_owner_brian_aitken_is_rele.html
Why bother passing any kind of state tax law when you can go to a neighboring state to live or purchase goods with more favorable tax laws? Rendering their taxing power "ineffective". Nationalize it so the central planners can assure all taxing power and laws are effective.
And the FEDS kind of have a role in preventing state's from engaging in protectionist tactics against one another with the Dormant Commerce Clause. Nevertheless, people don't move away from taxation as much as people think. If people did, voting with their feet would make a difference and you'd probably see less state level taxation. California is still the most populous state in the nation despite higher taxation than other states because Beautiful Weather and Climate must matter more to more people than taxation. If everyone left California for Kansas when Jerry Brown raised taxes....you wouldn't have it.
State level taxation works....State level prohibition of abortion was made illegal by the FEDs....State level Gun Control is a woeful failure.....the National Firearms Act has been a resounding success (even our resident firearms enthusiasts acknowledge that people/criminals/terrorists cannot get the firearms it prohibits). -
Cleveland Buck
Maybe you don't want a list, but what do you think they do with the names of people that get the background checks? Just forget them? I know you are naive and gullible, but come on. I'm sure you support registration too, which by definition is making and keeping a list of gun owners.BoatShoes;1433320 wrote:Don't want a list of everyone who has them. You and others who agree with you undermine the genuine concerns of the libertarian position by building such straw men IMHO. -
WebFire
I've already explained that. Terrorist don't buy guns from anywhere that will ever include background checks. I find it downright hilarious that anti-gunners can't understand this. A person with criminal intent is not going to buy a gun that is any way, shape or form traceable.BoatShoes;1433293 wrote:How is it that Frank Lautenberg's amendment to have background checks include potential terrorist databases like the one's Tamerlan was on not target people we as a society through our intelligence agencies are concerned might perform criminal/terrorist acts? -
BoatShoes
Even if that proposition is true which is dubious at best...why do you not see the utility in making that much harder to do when it is easy as hell?WebFire;1433344 wrote:I've already explained that. Terrorist don't buy guns from anywhere that will ever include background checks. I find it downright hilarious that anti-gunners can't understand this. A person with criminal intent is not going to buy a gun that is any way, shape or form traceable.
Background Checks with expanded tort liability to the sellers and distributors and manufacturers of firearms involved in crime make the prospect of "untraceable" firearms sales less likely.
The National Firearms Act in 1934 has essentially eliminated untraceable transactions of fully automatic weapons that are used in crimes despite I'm sure numerous amounts of people with criminal intent over the last half a century who would've liked to use them. -
WebFire
Honestly, my #1 reason I am against it, is because that is just where they are starting. They will build it piece-by-piece until they get what they want. You don't think a database will be built? Yeah right.BoatShoes;1433352 wrote:Even if that proposition is true which is dubious at best...why do you not see the utility in making that much harder to do when it is easy as hell?
Background Checks with expanded tort liability to the sellers and distributors and manufacturers of firearms involved in crime make the prospect of "untraceable" firearms sales less likely.
The National Firearms Act in 1934 has essentially eliminated untraceable transactions of fully automatic weapons that are used in crimes despite I'm sure numerous amounts of people with criminal intent over the last half a century who would've liked to use them.
Stop it now and kill the momentum. The libs and anti-gun people declared war on guns after Sandy Hook, and they are getting battle. And they act all surprised. -
WebFire
There is nothing dubious about it. It's fact. Hell, there was already laws to keep the bombers from having handguns. Guess what, they still had them. They didn't have licenses to carry the handguns. Guess what, they still did it. Not hard stuff here.BoatShoes;1433352 wrote:Even if that proposition is true which is dubious at best...why do you not see the utility in making that much harder to do when it is easy as hell?
Background Checks with expanded tort liability to the sellers and distributors and manufacturers of firearms involved in crime make the prospect of "untraceable" firearms sales less likely.
The National Firearms Act in 1934 has essentially eliminated untraceable transactions of fully automatic weapons that are used in crimes despite I'm sure numerous amounts of people with criminal intent over the last half a century who would've liked to use them. -
BoatShoes
So, even if it were a reasonable and good idea you are opposed because of what might happen in the future in some liberal wonderland that would require a total owning of the Senate, the House, the Presidency and the Supreme Court when even if that were to happen there would be nothing to stop it from happening anyway??? Seems reasonable.WebFire;1433359 wrote:Honestly, my #1 reason I am against it, is because that is just where they are starting. They will build it piece-by-piece until they get what they want. You don't think a database will be built? Yeah right.
Stop it now and kill the momentum. The libs and anti-gun people declared war on guns after Sandy Hook, and they are getting battle. And they act all surprised.
Reasonable republicans on board with Pat Toomey could've Shut Dianne Feinstein and her crusade the fuck up instantly. -
WebFire
Yes, but I also don't think it's a good idea. So I can't actually answer your question.BoatShoes;1433369 wrote:So, even if it were a reasonable and good idea you are opposed because of what might happen in the future in some liberal wonderland that would require a total owning of the Senate, the House, the Presidency and the Supreme Court when even if that were to happen there would be nothing to stop it from happening anyway??? Seems reasonable.
Reasonable republicans on board with Pat Toomey could've Shut Dianne Feinstein and her crusade the fuck up instantly. -
BoatShoes
Obviously ineffective hand gun laws. There are national laws that prevented them from having an M-60 which I'm sure they would've preferred when taking on the police but yet they did not have that....despite the unbridled criminal vigilance that you seem to think allows them to find any type of criminal weapon in the criminal underworld regardless of what laws. Cross into new hampshire and Maine and get any hand gun you want. Go down to a bad part of Boston and talk to a guy who got any gun he wanted from New Hampshire and/or Maine. Not hard stuff. Can't get a machine gun anywhere in the U.S. because of NFA...can't go into New Hampshire and Maine and get a machine gun or from a guy in a bad part of Boston who can't go into New Hampshire and maine and get a machine gun. Not hard stuff.WebFire;1433362 wrote:There is nothing dubious about it. It's fact. Hell, there was already laws to keep the bombers from having handguns. Guess what, they still had them. They didn't have licenses to carry the handguns. Guess what, they still did it. Not hard stuff here. -
WebFire
You keep harping on the NFA, but those guns were never really in civilian circulation. That is the main reason you don't see them today. And funny you cite a law which is a 100% weapon ban. Hmmmmmm...but we shouldn't be worried about that, right?BoatShoes;1433373 wrote:Obviously ineffective hand gun laws. There are national laws that prevented them from having an M-60 which I'm sure they would've preferred when taking on the police but yet they did not have that....despite the unbridled criminal vigilance that you seem to think allows them to find any type of criminal weapon in the criminal underworld regardless of what laws. Cross into new hampshire and Maine and get any hand gun you want. Go down to a bad part of Boston and talk to a guy who got any gun he wanted from New Hampshire and/or Maine. Not hard stuff. Can't get a machine gun anywhere in the U.S. because of NFA...can't go into New Hampshire and Maine and get a machine gun or from a guy in a bad part of Boston who can't go into New Hampshire and maine and get a machine gun. Not hard stuff. -
queencitybuckeye
I'm not sure why you're trying to be obtuse here. What would matter is if the law essentially eliminated crimes using automatic weapons. It has not unless one uses a liberal (synonym for dishonest) definition of "essentially". In 2009 alone, four crimes were committed in California using three different models of fully automatic weapons. Four, one state, one year. Abberation? Unlikely. "Essentially"? Not even close.BoatShoes;1433352 wrote: The National Firearms Act in 1934 has essentially eliminated untraceable transactions of fully automatic weapons that are used in crimes despite I'm sure numerous amounts of people with criminal intent over the last half a century who would've liked to use them. -
BoatShoes
Do you have a source for this?? I found one link that suggested that research for the 1989 firearms act that further regulated automatic weapons suggested that homicides and crimes involving automatic weapons were very low...especially in comparison to handguns which are not nearly as heavily regulated federally. However, I did not think the source was up to your high standards. So, perhaps you will provide one?queencitybuckeye;1433386 wrote:I'm not sure why you're trying to be obtuse here. What would matter is if the law essentially eliminated crimes using automatic weapons. It has not unless one uses a liberal (synonym for dishonest) definition of "essentially". In 2009 alone, four crimes were committed in California using three different models of fully automatic weapons. Four, one state, one year. Abberation? Unlikely. "Essentially"? Not even close.
But, yes QCB...in comparison to the number of deaths at the hands of firearms....that is very low...but because you like to troll me perhaps "essentially eliminated" was not the right words for a purist like yourself. According to the link below, California had 1,680 firearms deaths in 2011...the most of any state...and so 4 out of 1,680 is pretty good is it not? I'd go as far as saying that is an essentially an elimination. If we only had 4 highway accidents in California per year I'd say that's essentially an elimination...but whatev...be a stickler about it. The point remains.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
How about this...the National Firearms Act regulates automatic weapons nationally and there have been much lower levels of automatic weapon violence than non-automatic weapon violence. Why are criminals with all of their resolve to commit crimes unable to get automatic weapons? -
pmoney25
There are about 31k Gun Related deaths a year. About 2/3 of those are Suicides( which in my opinion is far more alarming than the occassional school shooting). Out of the rest, handguns are responsible for the vast majority. This act put on by the president is nothing more than a weak attempt to make it seem like he is doing something.
If you take a look at it, most (not all) occurs in areas with less education and less economic development. Most of those people who carries guns do so for protection from other people and mainly relating to the drug trade. No one really pays attention to those people though and only really care when a middle class/rich neighborhood gets shot up.
It is really quite disturbing that people don't see how the Government has created this perpetual welfare state and continue this ignorant war on drugs that is causing more deaths and more crime. -
BoatShoes
I'm arguing that better and smarter laws work and using the NFA as an example. We don't have to go that far to make progress. You say that the only reason the NFA works is because those guns were in circulation. You're essentially arguing that the only effective way to stop unnecessary gun deaths and terrorists/criminals from getting guns is to take guns out of circulation because law abiding citizens will circulate them to people who will then get them in the hands of terrorists/criminals.WebFire;1433385 wrote:You keep harping on the NFA, but those guns were never really in civilian circulation. That is the main reason you don't see them today. And funny you cite a law which is a 100% weapon ban. Hmmmmmm...but we shouldn't be worried about that, right?
You're undermining your own case for legal responsible gun ownership and you are making the case for confiscation when you could just be on board with something like background checks and expanded liability and stop worrying about problems that do not exist...i.e. San Francisco style-liberals having total control of the government and taking your guns.
Stop worrying about problems we don't have and worry about ones we do....terrorists and criminals and mentally insane people and people with mentally insane people in their house easily getting guns and killing people all over america. It is in the interest of law abiding gun owners/good guys with guns to try to find ways to stop this. -
pmoney25
Because most criminals are not going out trying to commit mass shootings. I don't have a link but I would bet it is safe to say that most Murders are committed by someone who went looking to kill a certain individual and a single handgun/shotgun would suffice.BoatShoes;1433412 wrote:Do you have a source for this?? I found one link that suggested that research for the 1989 firearms act that further regulated automatic weapons suggested that homicides and crimes involving automatic weapons were very low...especially in comparison to handguns which are not nearly as heavily regulated federally. However, I did not think the source was up to your high standards. So, perhaps you will provide one?
But, yes QCB...in comparison to the number of deaths at the hands of firearms....that is very low...but because you like to troll me perhaps "essentially eliminated" was not the right words for a purist like yourself. According to the link below, California had 1,680 firearms deaths in 2011...the most of any state...and so 4 out of 1,680 is pretty good is it not? I'd go as far as saying that is an essentially an elimination. If we only had 4 highway accidents in California per year I'd say that's essentially an elimination...but whatev...be a stickler about it. The point remains.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
How about this...the National Firearms Act regulates automatic weapons nationally and there have been much lower levels of automatic weapon violence than non-automatic weapon violence. Why are criminals with all of their resolve to commit crimes unable to get automatic weapons? -
WebFireBoatShoes;1433419 wrote:I'm arguing that better and smarter laws work and using the NFA as an example. We don't have to go that far to make progress. You say that the only reason the NFA works is because those guns were in circulation. You're essentially arguing that the only effective way to stop unnecessary gun deaths and terrorists/criminals from getting guns is to take guns out of circulation because law abiding citizens will circulate them to people who will then get them in the hands of terrorists/criminals.
You're undermining your own case for legal responsible gun ownership and you are making the case for confiscation when you could just be on board with something like background checks and expanded liability and stop worrying about problems that do not exist...i.e. San Francisco style-liberals having total control of the government and taking your guns.
Stop worrying about problems we don't have and worry about ones we do....terrorists and criminals and mentally insane people and people with mentally insane people in their house easily getting guns and killing people all over america. It is in the interest of law abiding gun owners/good guys with guns to try to find ways to stop this.
Oh boy. -
queencitybuckeye
Your comparison is invalid, likely an intentional obfuscation on your part. The correct comparison would be levels of automatic weapons violence prior to the law vs. after.BoatShoes;1433412 wrote: How about this...the National Firearms Act regulates automatic weapons nationally and there have been much lower levels of automatic weapon violence than non-automatic weapon violence. Why are criminals with all of their resolve to commit crimes unable to get automatic weapons?
The notion that criminals are "unable" to get automatic weapons is not backed up by anything other that your fervent wish that no one calls you on your silliness. -
BoatShoes
I appreciate your calling my thoughts silliness but I think that is not the case. I imagine that most social scientists would find such data useful even if you do not. In fact, what you proposes would just be another way of looking at whether or not the law is effective. It is certainly not conclusive but it is nevertheless worthwhile...especially when we hear about the extreme futility of firearms legislation so often.queencitybuckeye;1433475 wrote:Your comparison is invalid, likely an intentional obfuscation on your part. The correct comparison would be levels of automatic weapons violence prior to the law vs. after.
The notion that criminals are "unable" to get automatic weapons is not backed up by anything other that your fervent wish that no one calls you on your silliness.
If we assume that terrorists/criminals/gangsters can obtain automatic weapons...Why are criminals and terrorists and gangs not using automatic weapons in the United States...is it because they do not desire them...is it because they would rather use a hand gun than an UZI...is it because they do not kill/maim as effectively as semi-automatic weapons??? I'm not sure. -
BoatShoes
How are you not? I do not want gun confiscation. What I do want is less gun violence/homicides/suicides. There are small ways you can make improvements in that area without confiscating and/or banning a lot of firearms that don't have to lead to liberal fantasy land. You won't eliminate all evil or gun violence but it can get measurably better.WebFire;1433430 wrote:Oh boy.
You are making the case that ways to try to stop gun violence are nearly always ineffective...you find problems with every single thing as if they are not worth trying...going so far as to say that when there are lots of guns are in circulation they inevitably circulate to criminals/terrorists/gangsters who will find ways to get them outside the bounds of the law. If in fact it is desirable to reduce gun violence/homicides/suicides...which I am assuming most Americans would find desirable (maybe not the right wingers on this board but certainly most average americans without strong ideological convictions would think that is at least a good idea)...and you say that nothing will work...you make the case for gun confiscation. But hey, maybe you don't think it's worthwhile to stop gun violence/homicides/suicides??? -
WebFire
It's fairly obvious gun confiscation WOULD stop gun violence. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of it. But we tried banning assault weapons for 10 years, and it didn't work. Why do you think background checks would?BoatShoes;1433533 wrote:How are you not? I do not want gun confiscation. What I do want is less gun violence/homicides/suicides. There are small ways you can make improvements in that area without confiscating and/or banning a lot of firearms that don't have to lead to liberal fantasy land. You won't eliminate all evil or gun violence but it can get measurably better.
You are making the case that ways to try to stop gun violence are nearly always ineffective...you find problems with every single thing as if they are not worth trying...going so far as to say that when there are lots of guns are in circulation they inevitably circulate to criminals/terrorists/gangsters who will find ways to get them outside the bounds of the law. If in fact it is desirable to reduce gun violence/homicides/suicides...which I am assuming most Americans would find desirable (maybe not the right wingers on this board but certainly most average americans without strong ideological convictions would think that is at least a good idea)...and you say that nothing will work...you make the case for gun confiscation. But hey, maybe you don't think it's worthwhile to stop gun violence/homicides/suicides??? -
BoatShoes
This is a pretty good point...so maybe automatic firearms are widely available on the black market but most would-be murderers think only a hand gun is necessary?pmoney25;1433422 wrote:Because most criminals are not going out trying to commit mass shootings. I don't have a link but I would bet it is safe to say that most Murders are committed by someone who went looking to kill a certain individual and a single handgun/shotgun would suffice.
I have my doubts this is true. I imagine gangs would ratchet it up to full auto as they can be in kind of an arms race against one another. So I imagine you might see more gang related gun homicides involving full auto weapons as opposed to hand guns. But then again, they are harder to conceal which is also one of benefits of a hand gun and those might be more desirable for gang members. So, perhaps you are right. -
BoatShoes
Background Checks + Expanded Liability.WebFire;1433535 wrote:It's fairly obvious gun confiscation WOULD stop gun violence. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of it. But we tried banning assault weapons for 10 years, and it didn't work. Why do you think background checks would?
Tamerlan is a good example. He was denied naturalized citizenship with a simple background check...unlike his brother who was granted it. If you are a seller of a firearm, distributor of a firearm etc. why would you sell a firearm to a man on a terrorist watch list, a convicted burglarer, a mentally insane person if you could be liable for crimes he/she commits with the firearm you sell them? The same type of check that turned him down for citizenship could have turned him down from obtaining a firearm.
I think things would improve considerably if we reduced things down to people trying to buy guns background check free over Tor from the Silk Road with farking Bitcoins.
It's kind of like the Voter ID arguments for voting. We do not know how much fraud it will deter but it generally appeals to common sense to make sure the person who is voting is the person who they say they are and have the right to vote. Conservatives want to demand the Jahar's of the world show a basic I.D. when they vote but we can't do a little background check whenever they want to buy a gun???
And, I don't know if they'll work...but it seems to be a pretty reasonable step with limited infringements on liberty that are worth trying. -
FatHobbit
You have argued here many times that you would prefer if the US were more like Japan or Australia. I can not find a specific post where you have called for gun confiscation so maybe I misunderstood, but I think this is a blatant lie. And it's why I don't trust anyone who wants any more gun control. They know they can't get it, so they try to chip away at it piece by piece and call it reasonable gun control. They don't want gun confiscation. They don't want a registration/list of guns in the country. But only because they know they cant get it. So they settle for chipping away so they can get closer and closer to what they want.BoatShoes;1433533 wrote:I do not want gun confiscation. -
FatHobbit
By the same logic, the left doesn't want people to have ID to vote but they expect us to pass a background check to buy a gun. Not just have ID, but actually go through a process to document that they want to buy a gun.BoatShoes;1433543 wrote:It's kind of like the Voter ID arguments for voting. We do not know how much fraud it will deter but it generally appeals to common sense to make sure the person who is voting is the person who they say they are and have the right to vote. Conservatives want to demand the Jahar's of the world show a basic I.D. when they vote but we can't do a little background check whenever they want to buy a gun???