🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[JimThompson]

Taliban warns against travel to U.S. due to gun violence

 

[Lighthouse]

That's some epic trolling.

 

[Holiday]

It happened one time in one hundred instances. Of course they are going to cling to it.

More stories to cling to:

Armed neighbor shoots suspect stabbing woman in her front yard

2 men shot in attempted home invasion in Bevo Mill neighborhood

Man with knife inside Coshocton McDonald’s charged

WPD: Man fatally shot after trying to enter neighbor’s home

Youngstown store owner shoots suspects in attempted robbery

OSBI seeking robbery suspects who tied up elderly couple in Tuttle

Long Beach resident shoots, kills man attacking him, police say

84-Year-Old Man Shoots Would-Be Home Invader in Dallas


Akron man, 73, with gun under pillow detains burglary suspect until police arrive

Store clerk shoots would be robber; police investigating

Days after girl mauled to death by dogs, her uncle is attacked by two loose German shepherds

Off-duty officer & retired officer fatally shoot armed robbery suspect

I'm aware of the absurd amount of unlawful shootings (mostly committed by people who can't legally own a gun I'd bet) that surely have also happened in this same week and a half time frame but some of y'all act like self defense shootings only exist in the imaginations of young or middle aged white men.

 

[Holiday]

What does this have to do with being able to get a gun legally, by passing a background check? Crenshaw was talking about giving guns to his friends without any supervision. Why should that be legal? If you can't own a gun legally, if you can't pass a background check, why should someone just be allowed to give you one? And if the answer is, "well they didn't have time to get one", they sure as hell didn't care enough to get a gun in the first place.

Dan Crenshaw & Universal Background Checks -- A ThinkProgress Smear | National Review

"Or put another way: Crenshaw’s objection is that, under H.R. 8, all transfers that do not fit the cramped “family loan” or “temporary transfer” criteria are deemed permanent. Currently, Crenshaw can lend a Texan friend a gun, and, when that friend is done with it, he can give that guns back to Crenshaw. Were H.R. 8 in force, this would not be true. On the contrary: Under H.R. 8, each exchange would involve Crenshaw first transferring ownership of a given gun to his friend, and then, when his friend was finished with that gun, he would be obliged to transfer ownership back to Crenshaw. Both transactions would be heavy on paperwork, and would involve costs — both for the mandatory background check and whatever transportation and time was necessary to get both people in front of a federally licensed firearms dealer. That — not that his friends are criminals and domestic abusers — is what Crenshaw is complaining about. And he’s justified in doing so."

I'm not sure why Crenshaw used that example of someone using a gun in self defense other than it happened recently.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Dan Crenshaw & Universal Background Checks -- A ThinkProgress Smear | National Review

"Or put another way: Crenshaw’s objection is that, under H.R. 8, all transfers that do not fit the cramped “family loan” or “temporary transfer” criteria are deemed permanent. Currently, Crenshaw can lend a Texan friend a gun, and, when that friend is done with it, he can give that guns back to Crenshaw. Were H.R. 8 in force, this would not be true. On the contrary: Under H.R. 8, each exchange would involve Crenshaw first transferring ownership of a given gun to his friend, and then, when his friend was finished with that gun, he would be obliged to transfer ownership back to Crenshaw. Both transactions would be heavy on paperwork, and would involve costs — both for the mandatory background check and whatever transportation and time was necessary to get both people in front of a federally licensed firearms dealer. That — not that his friends are criminals and domestic abusers — is what Crenshaw is complaining about. And he’s justified in doing so."

I'm not sure why Crenshaw used that example of someone using a gun in self defense other than it happened recently.

So, why should one be allowed to lend a gun to someone else? It's a gun. The entire argument is based around the idea of being able to just lend your gun to people. The entire point of the paperwork, is to make sure the person should be allowed to be in possession of a gun and to know who is responsible for that gun. In case you know, a crime.

If someone wants a gun, it should be on them to purchase it. Legally.

 

[Holiday]

So, why should one be allowed to lend a gun to someone else? It's a gun. The entire argument is based around the idea of being able to just lend your gun to people. The entire point of the paperwork, is to make sure the person should be allowed to be in possession of a gun and to know who is responsible for that gun. In case you know, a crime.

If someone wants a gun, it should be on them to purchase it. Legally.

Let's say a woman is under threat of violence by an ex. She can't afford a gun to defend herself so she asks a friend or neighbor to borrow one. Even if she had her own concealed carry license which proved she could pass a background check, under H. R. 8, without going through a licensed dealer and paying the fees it would be a felony.

EDIT:

Another reason this law is too restrictive

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Safe storage discouraged

"Consider a person who will be away from home for an extended period: a member of the armed services being deployed overseas, a person going away to school, a person going on a long vacation, or a person evacuating her home due to a natural disaster. Such persons might wish to store firearms with a trusted neighbor or friend. This type of storage should be encouraged. Guns are less likely to be stolen by burglars, and then sold into the black market, if they are kept in an occupied home rather than left in a house that will be unoccupied.

But under HR8, neighbor A can only store neighbor B's guns if both persons go to a gun store, fill out extensive paperwork for each and every gun to be stored, pay per-gun fees to the government and the gun store, and then repeat the process when the firearms are returned. As a result, many fewer people will go through all the trouble. So more guns will be left in unoccupied dwellings; they will be at greater risk of being stolen and thus of being supplied to the criminal black market. Discouraging safe storage is among the ways HR8 harms public safety."

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

More stories to cling to:

Armed neighbor shoots suspect stabbing woman in her front yard

2 men shot in attempted home invasion in Bevo Mill neighborhood

Man with knife inside Coshocton McDonald’s charged

WPD: Man fatally shot after trying to enter neighbor’s home

Youngstown store owner shoots suspects in attempted robbery

OSBI seeking robbery suspects who tied up elderly couple in Tuttle

Long Beach resident shoots, kills man attacking him, police say

84-Year-Old Man Shoots Would-Be Home Invader in Dallas


Akron man, 73, with gun under pillow detains burglary suspect until police arrive

Store clerk shoots would be robber; police investigating

Days after girl mauled to death by dogs, her uncle is attacked by two loose German shepherds

Off-duty officer & retired officer fatally shoot armed robbery suspect

I'm aware of the absurd amount of unlawful shootings (mostly committed by people who can't legally own a gun I'd bet) that surely have also happened in this same week and a half time frame but some of y'all act like self defense shootings only exist in the imaginations of young or middle aged white men.

Funnily enough for the reading public... of course... Note how no one is saying the self defense scenario doesn't happen?

That guns are used in situations that end up with a person rightfully defending themselves from harm wasn't in dispute. These things happen and in fact the link I have in my previous post doesn't dispute that... What's in dispute, and of which it seems more stringent analysis than the highly flawed methodology of the Anti-regulation side or a grab bag of anecdotal "evidence" supports, is the over all amount and frequency and on that level, yeah... The apparent only to adolescent minded males of whatever category world of U.S. streets where on every corner (Or at least in states with open carry laws etc.) people merely flashing their guns or using them in pitched fire fights with criminals is in fact a strange wet dream (Especially given the 30 year plus long trend of an over all decrease in crime, especially violence inflicted by a random stranger upon another random stranger... Remember the chances a victim KNOWS their attacker are way greater than somebody just experiencing or succumbing to violence inflicted upon them from a person they have never seen before...) that doesn't reflect the reality of how often the ideal scenario of guns used for self defense really plays out.

I think evidence actually suggests it's far more likely that a purchased fire arm is going to be used in an act of suicide than will ever see action in use against a criminal attacker.

 

[Holiday]

Funnily enough for the reading public... of course... Note how no one is saying the self defense scenario doesn't happen?

That guns are used in situations that end up with a person rightfully defending themselves from harm wasn't in dispute. These things happen and in fact the link I have in my previous post doesn't dispute that... What's in dispute, and of which it seems more stringent analysis than the highly flawed methodology of the Anti-regulation side or a grab bag of anecdotal "evidence" supports, is the over all amount and frequency and on that level, yeah... The apparent only to adolescent minded males of whatever category world of U.S. streets where on every corner (Or at least in states with open carry laws etc.) people merely flashing their guns or using them in pitched fire fights with criminals is in fact a strange wet dream (Especially given the 30 year plus long trend of an over all decrease in crime, especially violence inflicted by a random stranger upon another random stranger... Remember the chances a victim KNOWS their attacker are way greater than somebody just experiencing or succumbing to violence inflicted upon them from a person they have never seen before...) that doesn't reflect the reality of how often the ideal scenario of guns used for self defense really plays out.

I think evidence actually suggests it's far more likely that a purchased fire arm is going to be used in an act of suicide than will ever see action in use against a criminal attacker.

"Blah blah blah wet dream blah blah blah"...

Okay..

Right, self defense shootings aren't in duspute. People here have only said that they are "rare" which by itself doesn't actually mean anything. They've just said that a self defense shooting was "1 out of 100" and "1 out of 1000" which doesn't really mean anything either. Someone refered to a self defense shooting last year as "the one time it happened" and when I pointed out that just two days before a father shot an armed robber in a Birmingham, Alabama McDonald's it was met with the totally irrelevant response from another poster pointing to the number of gun deaths in Alabama that year with no acknowledgement of how many of those deaths were suicides or homicides committed by criminals who don't give a damn about the law anyway. This is the same forum where saying that a gun is the white man's tool for intimidation will get "likes".

 

[moviedoors]

Why shouldn't suicides count? Of course suicides should count!

 

[Teelie]

But you have to ignore the suicides for the numbers to make sense. Otherwise it might be a problem.

 

[Teelie]

Just to graph it:

Wikipedia

 

[Holiday]

Why shouldn't suicides count? Of course suicides should count!

As a gun death statistic yeah, but not as an argument against legal gun ownership.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

 

[terry78]

Ted Cruz, Alyssa Milano Meet to Talk Gun Reform – Deadline

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

The Washington Post - 'My AR is ready for you,' Texas Republican lawmaker tells Beto O'Rourke over mandatory buybacks

 

[Teelie]

If only he meant to turn it in, not turn it on someone.

 

[Legendver2]

Jesus this went from 1 to 100 real quick...

 

[Lighthouse]

 

[moviedoors]

As a gun death statistic yeah, but not as an argument against legal gun ownership.

How about this as a standard: anyone that's ever attempted suicide isn't allowed to own a gun anymore. Can you even get behind that?

 

[Lighthouse]

How about this as a standard: anyone that's ever attempted suicide isn't allowed to own a gun anymore. Can you even get behind that?

To be fair, that is not realistically enforceable.

 

[Holiday]

How about this as a standard: anyone that's ever attempted suicide isn't allowed to own a gun anymore. Can you even get behind that?

It's gonna be a "no" from me dog. I don't think that would reduce the overall suicide numbers by any significant amount.

 

[Sithborg]

Suicide attempts, probably not. Successful suicides, probably it would.

 

[Holiday]

I don't care to discuss it really but there are plenty of ways for a person to commit suicide. The numbers for other methods would go up. May as well restrict people from buying any number of household items.

 

[Lighthouse]

Suicide attempts, probably not. Successful suicides, probably it would.

Look, I'm very, very pro-gun control, but outlawing people who have attempted suicide from owning guns is not a realistic law. Doing a mental health database is already a scary idea the Trump administration is putting forth. Do we really want the government or any other agency keeping a list of people who have attempted suicide? Who will have access to it? Could employers get this list?

 

[Teelie]

That's a likely possibility. Nothing the government collects is safe from being leaked or stolen by someone else. There have been so many cases of confidential information ending up in the wrong hands to assume they could keep this confidential too.