The CT shooting and gun control

• WebFire

  FatHobbit;1433554 wrote: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.

  This. I find it odd that the claim is no registry will be created, yet the gun sellers are required to keep the info in a binder. Why would there be a need for any record if it is purely a background check at time of sale?
• gut

  FatHobbit;1433558 wrote: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.

  This and your post above it pretty much nails it. The left screams and sounds alarms for years and years, maybe manufactures some data, and gradually they get some people to soften their views.
  
  "well, gee, I don't know if they've convinced me mole people exist...but I think we should stop drilling for oil just to be on the safe side"
• BoatShoes

  FatHobbit;1433554 wrote: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.

  I cited Japan and Australia and other countries primarily to point out that national gun legislation appears to reduce gun violence. People don't even acknowledge that the U.S. has significant gun violence problems! Whether we ban them all or not is not the issue...you have to realize we have to even get firearms enthusiasts to even acknowledge that laws can be effective...as evidenced by this thread.
  
  You won't find a post where I argued for gun confiscation because I have never argued that. When I was asked directly on this forum what I said was that I would not oppose it if I lived in a country where that is what people wanted. For example...if Webfire's unlikely nightmare comes to fruition and the entire country is populated with San Francisco style liberals and they wanted to confiscate firearms and eliminate most if not all guns...I probably wouldn't complain too much...It is not my preference but I wouldn't be protesting that I will not be able to fend off Bernie Sanders and the Socialist Tyrants! I have acknowledged that this would require a Constitutional Amendment and significant constitutional change.
  
  The arguments I've made about people only needing certain types of guns for self defense were simply to attack what I consider to be poor arguments raised by gun-enthusiasts. I.e. I think they should say they want an AR-15 simply because they want one not that it provides any utitlity...similar to motorcycles...you can have it because it's your freedom to have it, etc.
  
  I have offered a few prescrtiptions however. Feel free to search for them. I have said that if I were king I would prefer pigovian taxes to reflect true competitive market pricing and externalities for guns and bullets, expanded background checks and licensing requirements to try to make sure that the fellow citizens we're arming are indeed loyal to the United States and not criminals/terrorists, drug decriminalization to curb the gun violence associated with gang activity, and expanded products liability.
  
  I, and a lot of democrats really have no special desire to ban guns. If Dianne Feinstein would just shut up, maybe folks like yourself wouldn't have irrational fear that we do so it is partly our fault. I mean Harvey Milk was killed with a handgun so I don't really get her beef with scary guns anyway.
• BoatShoes

  FatHobbit;1433558 wrote: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.

  I agree that some liberals want no voter I.D.'s. However, a large majority of them...including Justice John Paul Stevens who upheld voter I.D., would support it if it's done in a fair, honest way that helps ensure that poorer and older folks are able to vote and get I.D.'s and have their ballots counted etc.
  
  I have said as much that I could get behind Voter I.D. if it weren't obvious attempts to simply ensure that democrat voters had a harder time voting in time to get Romney elected...as Republicans even said outloud. It has been 6 months since BHO was re-elected...where are the Conservative Voter Fraud protectors advancing Voter I.D. laws with plenty of time to go until 2014 and 2016??? Why would they actually want to help teh p00rz get I.D.'s after all??? But that is for another thread...don't want to hijack.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;1433528 wrote: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.

  Why do you think everything comes down to a consensus of "experts"? The evidence does not need opinion, it is a matter of fact. There are laws against using automatic weapons in crimes, yet there are still a substantial number of crimes committed using them, with no evidence that the legislation you cite prevented a single crime. Not one.
• LJ

  

  BoatShoes;1433627 wrote: The arguments I've made about people only needing certain types of guns for self defense were simply to attack what I consider to be poor arguments raised by gun-enthusiasts. I.e. I think they should say they want an AR-15 simply because they want one not that it provides any utitlity.

  This is complete and utter bullshit. An AR-15 provides a lot of utility, especially to people who live in areas where they have to protect their farms from hogs, coyotes, and wolves (which hogs and coyotes includes many portions of the eastern U.S. believe it or not!)
• gut

  LJ;1433645 wrote:This is complete and utter bull****. An AR-15 provides a lot of utility, especially to people who live in areas where they have to protect their farms from hogs, coyotes, and wolves (which hogs and coyotes includes many portions of the eastern U.S. believe it or not!)

  C'mon, you've got people like Diane Feinstein, who doesn't even understand how a clip works, pushing legislation. It's a classic example of pandering. Doesn't matter if what they do isn't effective, the main thing is that they APPEAR to be doing something.
  
  We have hundreds of state and federal laws on the books. How stupid do you have to be to think more laws is the solution? Maybe Obama could actually go to work and figure out how to enforce existing laws more effectively.
• WebFire

  LJ;1433645 wrote:This is complete and utter bullshit. An AR-15 provides a lot of utility, especially to people who live in areas where they have to protect their farms from hogs, coyotes, and wolves (which hogs and coyotes includes many portions of the eastern U.S. believe it or not!)

  And even it doesn't provide any utility, why does anyone need to give a reason for wanting/needing any certain type of gun?
• WebFire

  gut;1433649 wrote:C'mon, you've got people like Diane Feinstein, who doesn't even understand how a clip works, pushing legislation. It's a classic example of pandering. Doesn't matter if what they do isn't effective, the main thing is that they APPEAR to be doing something.
  
  We have hundreds of state and federal laws on the books. How stupid do you have to be to think more laws is the solution? Maybe Obama could actually go to work and figure out how to enforce existing laws more effectively.

  I assume you meant to quote Boat?
• WebFire

  BoatShoes;1433630 wrote:I agree that some liberals want no voter I.D.'s. However, a large majority of them...including Justice John Paul Stevens who upheld voter I.D., would support it if it's done in a fair, honest way that helps ensure that poorer and older folks are able to vote and get I.D.'s and have their ballots counted etc.
  
  I have said as much that I could get behind Voter I.D. if it weren't obvious attempts to simply ensure that democrat voters had a harder time voting in time to get Romney elected...as Republicans even said outloud. It has been 6 months since BHO was re-elected...where are the Conservative Voter Fraud protectors advancing Voter I.D. laws with plenty of time to go until 2014 and 2016??? Why would they actually want to help teh p00rz get I.D.'s after all??? But that is for another thread...don't want to hijack.

  You mean like how some pro-gun people would get behind background expansion if it were fair and not for the simple reason of not liking guns, like Libs have said outloud? It is no secret Libs and anti-gun people have a clear agenda to rid America of guns.
• gut

  WebFire;1433653 wrote:I assume you meant to quote Boat?

  nope, sarcasm
• LJ

  

  WebFire;1433654 wrote:You mean like how some pro-gun people would get behind background expansion if it were fair and not for the simple reason of not liking guns, like Libs have said outloud? It is no secret Libs and anti-gun people have a clear agenda to rid America of guns.

  I mean, I think they need to fix the current background check system first. Make all the states mandatory report the crazies. Sure add the terrorist watch list (at least at a delay level). Mandatory violent crime reporting for a specific timed dis-qualifier.
• WebFire

  gut;1433656 wrote:nope, sarcasm

  Sorry, my sensors weren't on.
• tk421

  

  Exactly, they need to make all the current 20K gun laws work before they even think of adding even more. It's beyond comprehension that someone would think one more law in the mess of laws that they don't enforce now would make any difference. Someone show me FBI stats on how many guns are purchased LEGALLY at a gun show in a private transaction and then used in violent crime and I'll start to think about it. Until then, not a chance. Government has no business in private sale of personal property between law abiding citizens. Exact same as if I wanted to sale my car, I'm not going to run a search on someone to see if they had a DUI in the past.
• BoatShoes

  WebFire;1433654 wrote:You mean like how some pro-gun people would get behind background expansion if it were fair and not for the simple reason of not liking guns, like Libs have said outloud? It is no secret Libs and anti-gun people have a clear agenda to rid America of guns.

  There are plenty of liberals who don't...
  
  I think if you'd really pay attention...saving lives really matters more to most liberals than gun control per se.
  
  Couldn't even get 50 democrats on Toomey-Manchin.
  
  Look I will agree that on this round...Dianne Feinstein especially and probably Biden and Obama too likely poisoned the well by talking about gun bans this time around.
• BoatShoes

  tk421;1433705 wrote:Exactly, they need to make all the current 20K gun laws work before they even think of adding even more. It's beyond comprehension that someone would think one more law in the mess of laws that they don't enforce now would make any difference. Someone show me FBI stats on how many guns are purchased LEGALLY at a gun show in a private transaction and then used in violent crime and I'll start to think about it. Until then, not a chance. Government has no business in private sale of personal property between law abiding citizens. Exact same as if I wanted to sale my car, I'm not going to run a search on someone to see if they had a DUI in the past.

  Why not use this opportunity to reform these so called "20k gun laws" that aren't enforced and don't work?
• FatHobbit

  

  BoatShoes;1434353 wrote:Look I will agree that on this round...Dianne Feinstein especially and probably Biden and Obama too likely poisoned the well by talking about gun bans this time around.

  exactly
• BoatShoes

  tk421;1433705 wrote: Government has no business in private sale of personal property between law abiding citizens.

  Well the government does get involved in the private sale of personal property when it comes to motor vehicles...You have to transfer the vehicle title issued by the state department of motor vehicles...
• LJ

  

  BoatShoes;1434359 wrote:Well the government does get involved in the private sale of personal property when it comes to motor vehicles...You have to transfer the vehicle title issued by the state department of motor vehicles...

  If you want to register it to drive on the road.... There are thousands of mud trucks and racecars in Ohio that are not titled and registered.
• BoatShoes

  FatHobbit;1434360 wrote:exactly

  :rolleyes: What I meant on is improving firearms regulation overall. There need not be bans ever. Cooperation from you folks putting away irrational fears of the future could leave the gun banners out in the cold.
  
  This seems to be a common theme amongst conservatives on major policy issues....fear of even the threat of inflation in the future despite no forecasts of inflation by people with money on the line and a real, pressing, problem of catastrophic unemployment......fears of interest rate attacks in the future despite rates at record lows and no forecasts or reason to believe they will rise....Fears of total gun bans in the future despite such actions being prima facie unconstitutional in violation of the 2nd amendment and outside of the powers granted to Congress....
  
  
  This kind of folly is what allows the hardcore left radicals to get to power...For example, Marx opposed social insurance because it undermined the ultimate cause of overthrowing capitalism....By Capitalists allowing measured progress in social insurance...regulated capitalist systems with social insurance has eliminated the threat of marxism.
  
  If your goal is to avoid total gun bannings...Measured approaches to firearm safety can help stop total ban humpers from getting to power. Knocking down Manchin-Toomey has only emboldened Bloomberg and the like.
• BoatShoes

  LJ;1434365 wrote:If you want to register it to drive on the road.... There are thousands of mud trucks and racecars in Ohio that are not titled and registered.

  What is your point here? I was simply replying to TK41's sweeping claim that the Public should not be involved in the private sale of personal property. The public often is. For heaven's sake you even have to swipe an I.D. card to buy Sudafed. The U.C.C. imposes uniform standards for contracts between merchants.
  
  Often there are public policy reasons for the public taking part in private transactions and the world has not ended and liberty can actually be increased by the uniformity and clarification these processes bring.
• LJ

  

  BoatShoes;1434369 wrote:What is your point here? I was simply replying to TK41's sweeping claim that the Public should not be involved in the private sale of personal property. The public often is. For heaven's sake you even have to swipe an I.D. card to buy Sudafed. The U.C.C. imposes uniform standards for contracts between merchants.
  
  Often there are public policy reasons for the public taking part in private transactions and the world has not ended and liberty can actually be increased by the uniformity and clarification these processes bring.

  My point is that your example wasn't fully valid.
  
  You don't have to register for your sudafed (i've never had to swipe my ID for it). Most recordations are to prevent false claims of ownership. It's to protect the owner, not to protect the public. Registering items such as weapons is to the detriment of the owner and is sold as protection to the public.
  
  Many police depts have voluntary registration for weapons if you want to, in the case that they come up missing.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  But it's still largely ineffective, unless the ATF (or whatever government entity) is going to monitor every single rural auction house in Ohio or anywhere else there will always be transfers of certain farm vehicles and even weapons (mostly hunting rifles). I can't even begin to count the number of auctions where I've seen someone just comes by and purchases beloved belated grandpa's old .22.
  
  ---edit, meant to respond to BS
• BoatShoes

  LJ;1434374 wrote:My point is that your example wasn't fully valid.
  
  You don't have to register for your sudafed (i've never had to swipe my ID for it). Most recordations are to prevent false claims of ownership. It's to protect the owner, not to protect the public. Registering items such as weapons is to the detriment of the owner and is sold as protection to the public.
  
  Many police depts have voluntary registration for weapons if you want to, in the case that they come up missing.

  You are getting awfully specific here. I was just giving an example. My example is valid on the proposition that the public is often involved within private transactions for any number of reasons. I didn't say anything about gun registration or registration in general. We were talking about background checks.
• QuakerOats

  The president has asked us not to judge Muslims by the actions of a few.
  
  We agree.
  
  We ask the president to extend that same courtesy to millions of law-abiding American gunowners.