Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[Webfoot Hero]

All those guns around did a fantastic job of protecting him. If only someone with a gun and training were there.

So much wrong with that statement in this case that I'd only be insulting you and wasting my time.

 

[Victarion]

I just don't think introducing more guns into that kind of situation is the safest thing. More than likely you have a panicked crowd running around. I get that a civilian has to pass tests and psych evaluations, but in that sort of situation, where everyone's adrenaline is pumping, I don't know if that means anything at that point.

And then let's say the cops do show up and see they two people shooting at each other. It just adds even more chaos.

More often than not, if a shooter sees someone else drawing and aiming their weapon the proper way, they will panic and bolt. I read of two instances where a concealed carry civilian was present when a shooter decided to unload. In one of those instances, the carrier didn't fire a shot. When the shooter saw the carrier drawing and aiming, he ran. He might've shot himself later. I don't recall how it ultimately ended. I only remember that a tragedy was averted.

However, I agree with Marvolo on the need for competent people with concealed carry, not wannabe Men with No Names.

 

[enterthemadness]

I'm so tired of this debate.

If I were the head of the NRA, I would literally play chicken with them, them being the two party system. I would say something to the effect of prove conspiracies theorists wrong. You want gun control, or ban all guns, go for it. I'm not stopping you. Do whatever you want. Want to be like England with no guns, go for it bro. I ain't stopping you. I even work with you 100%.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Wasn't America founded on the principle of not wanting to be England?

The irony is that the British are the reason the country even has a second amendment. Because the Redcoats kept taking people's guns (and other things).

 

[dnno1]

Wasn't America founded on the principle of not wanting to be England?

The irony is that the British are the reason the country even has a second amendment. Because the Redcoats kept taking people's guns (and other things).

Them and Shay's Rebellion.

 

[dnno1]

I'm so tired of this debate.

If I were the head of the NRA, I would literally play chicken with them, them being the two party system. I would say something to the effect of prove conspiracies theorists wrong. You want gun control, or ban all guns, go for it. I'm not stopping you. Do whatever you want. Want to be like England with no guns, go for it bro. I ain't stopping you. I even work with you 100%.

I am certain that polititians would love the NRA to sit back. If they did that we would have the AWB reinstated, universal background checks, and a mental health database (and their corporate masters lose profits). That is not what they want and they know better than to sit back now. I doubt they will be sitting back for the next four years. That being said, I welcome the challenge.

 

[Victarion]

I am certain that polititians would love the NRA to sit back. If they did that we would have the AWB reinstated, universal background checks, and a mental health database (and their corporate masters lose profits). That is not what they want and they know better than to sit back now. I doubt they will be sitting back for the next four years. That being said, I welcome the challenge.

I don't care for the AWB at the moment, but I don't see why the NRA would be against the checks or a database. They seem like excellent ideas and I would think the NRA would back those.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't really get that fight anyway. How many mentally imbalanced people are there out there buying guns?

I can't imagine it would be such a hit to the wallet.

 

[Kelly]

I don't care for the AWB at the moment, but I don't see why the NRA would be against the checks or a database. They seem like excellent ideas and I would think the NRA would back those.

The idea that it is just something more for law abiding gun owners to have to do, just pisses me off......I don't give a crap if it takes you 5 hours to get checked out before you buy a gun. Get some cheese and wine over there....

 

[Spider-Who?]

I don't care for the AWB at the moment, but I don't see why the NRA would be against the checks or a database. They seem like excellent ideas and I would think the NRA would back those.

It all depends on the decade. The head of the NRA opposes stricter background checks now, but in the 90s, he was ALL for it.

It's all a game. Just like with regular politics and politicians - "I don't want this, but I'll give you this if you don't do that."

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Yeah and airbags sometimes kill people so I guess we should write off all airbags as a legitimate means of defense against vehicular death. Guns wont always save you in a defensive situation. This isnt the movies. There are too many factors, and you dont know how the events of this situation transpired. To make lite of that fact in the event of someone's death to make an erroneous point is

Wow, excellent job making my point for me. Thanks

 

[Thundercrack85]

Let's not do the false equivalency thing. Guns are by nature lethal weapons. Airbags, seat-belts, cars, etc, are not designed to be deadly. Unless it's a Pinto.

 

[Kelly]

Let's not do the false equivalency thing. Guns are by nature lethal weapons. Airbags, seat-belts, cars, etc, are not designed to be deadly. Unless it's a Pinto.

I had a Pinto....

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I had a Pinto....

Thank your lucky stars that you're still alive.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Because gun manufacturers(who stand to profit the most with loophole not being closed) fund the NRA and the NRA is against it

Manufacturers see not a cent from the loop hole. Its a private seller (ie a Joe Six Pack who collects weapons), who doesnt need to get background checks from buyers.

When you sell your tv on Craigslist, does Sony get a couple bucks from the sale?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Manufacturers see not a cent from the loop hole. Its a private seller (ie a Joe Six Pack who collects weapons), who doesnt need to get background checks from buyers.

When you sell your tv on Craigslist, does Sony get a couple bucks from the sale?

I don't get how anyone would think that a gun manufacturer would see a profit from private sales between private citizens involving a gun that's already been bought from a licensed gun dealer. Looks like someone's anti-gun beliefs outweighed basic reasoning skills there.

 

[SV Fan]

Manufacturers see not a cent from the loop hole. Its a private seller (ie a Joe Six Pack who collects weapons), who doesnt need to get background checks from buyers.

When you sell your tv on Craigslist, does Sony get a couple bucks from the sale?

Somebody has to buy the gun first that gets resold and I am pretty sure that all the guns that are sold at guns shows at some point were originally bought somewhere, which intern that money goes to gun manufacturers.

I don't get how anyone would think that a gun manufacturer would see a profit from private sales between private citizens involving a gun that's already been bought from a licensed gun dealer. Looks like someone's anti-gun beliefs outweighed basic reasoning skills there.

And I guess in your perfect world nobody goes and buys a bunch of guns with the intention of reselling them as soon as they get them(which technically would be a "private" sale)

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Somebody has to buy the gun first that gets resold and I am pretty sure that all the guns that are sold at guns shows at some point were originally bought somewhere, which intern that money goes to gun manufacturers.



And I guess in your perfect world nobody goes and buys a bunch of guns with the intention of reselling them as soon as they get them(which technically would be a "private" sale)

And the people who do that sort of thing are probably not going to follow any new law that's put on the books either.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

And the people who do that sort of thing are probably not going to follow any new law that's put on the books either.

So, if they're caught doing it, and there is no law, what do you propose the authorities and lawyers do? They can't prosecute him for it, because by definition he's or she's not doing something illegal.

Do you like rape? It's estimated 85%-90% of rapes go unreported, even male rapes, so do you want laws lifted against rape, because clearly rapists aren't deterred by laws.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

So, if they're caught doing it, and there is no law, what do you purpose the authorities and lawyers do? They can't prosecute him for it, because by definition he's or she's not doing something illegal.

Do you like rape? It's estimated 85%-90% of rapes go unreported, even male rapes, so do you want laws lifted against rape, because clearly rapists aren't deterred by laws.

First of all, it is propose, not purpose. On to the point, if he's caught selling to the wrong people and it's tracked back to him, then he's in the wrong and facing charges. And how are the cops/authorities going to keep track of every private gun transaction? There are already so many going on between legal, non-violent gun owners that they'd likely continue even without a background check. I'd also suspect that even if a law was passed, there'd be no noticeable downward trend in gun violence and that many law abiding citizens would be caught violating the law without having any malicious intent.

As for your rape argument, I'm not some heartless a-hole who wants rapists going free so that point you were trying to make is moot and not going to work in comparing the two. Basic rape laws are sensible since it's an awful crime that needs to be prevented and punished. Needing background checks on every gun transfer is just plain stupid since most are occurring between friends and family with no criminal histories. I've got no problem with doing it at gun shows, but in talking with gun show sellers (I know a couple), they and the others they've dealt with already do the checks using a third-party (typically a FFL gun dealer they know) to limit their liability in the event the gun is used in a crime somehow.

 

[SV Fan]

As for your rape argument, I'm not some heartless a-hole who wants rapists going free so that point you were trying to make is moot and not going to work in comparing the two. Basic rape laws are sensible since it's an awful crime that needs to be prevented and punished. Needing background checks on every gun transfer is just plain stupid since most are occurring between friends and family with no criminal histories. I've got no problem with doing it at gun shows, but in talking with gun show sellers (I know a couple), they and the others they've dealt with already do the checks using a third-party (typically a FFL gun dealer they know) to limit their liability in the event the gun is used in a crime somehow.

I think the rape argument is basically saying it's rather stupid to not make laws because well some people will ignore the laws(ie the NRA stance), therefore its pointless doing them in the first place. That kind of logic makes absolutely no sense. Maybe a better comparison is should people be free to grow, sell, buy and smoke weed because people are doing those anyways.

In the case of dealers at gun shows good for the ones who are doing the right thing, but you act as if some don't(I believe somebody a few pages back did the statistic of illegal gun sales at gun shows). I would argue it's unfair to the ones who are trying to do the right thing that other people can get away with less hassle, which puts them at a disadvantage.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

First of all, it is propose, not purpose. On to the point, if he's caught selling to the wrong people and it's tracked back to him, then he's in the wrong and facing charges. And how are the cops/authorities going to keep track of every private gun transaction? There are already so many going on between legal, non-violent gun owners that they'd likely continue even without a background check. I'd also suspect that even if a law was passed, there'd be no noticeable downward trend in gun violence and that many law abiding citizens would be caught violating the law without having any malicious intent.

Not if there's no law. If there's no law, and no way to properly enforce that law he walks. This isn't magic. The legal system isn't Batman sorting people into "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong", that's a juvenile view of law. It's about procedure and process. Something you clearly have a very limited idea of.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Not if there's no law. If there's no law, and no way to properly enforce that law he walks. This isn't magic. The legal system isn't Batman sorting people into "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong", that's a juvenile view of law. It's about procedure and process. Something you clearly have a very limited idea of.

Clearly you've never heard of straw purchases, which can make the private seller liable if the gun(s) is used in a crime and the seller ultimately knew it was going to used in that way.

I really have no further need in talking to you anymore if your going to insult my intelligence. Plus, I can clearly tell I'm not going to convince you one way or another.

 

[Kable24]

I don't care for the AWB at the moment, but I don't see why the NRA would be against the checks or a database. They seem like excellent ideas and I would think the NRA would back those.

The idea that it is just something more for law abiding gun owners to have to do, just pisses me off......I don't give a crap if it takes you 5 hours to get checked out before you buy a gun. Get some cheese and wine over there....

Just remember that not all NRA members feel like that. I'm a member and I think for private sales it should go through an FFL for the person who is buying. I have no issues filling out more paperwork either when I buy any type of gun. I can't understand why the Executive members are fighting that either.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Clearly you've never heard of straw purchases, which can make the private seller liable if the gun(s) is used in a crime and the seller ultimately knew it was going to used in that way.

So either the law is defunded (i.e. not being enforced) or there are massive loopholes in the law (in fact, in reality, it's both) which all goes back to political pressure from the NRA and lack of proper legislation. Which entirely bucks your constant "why do we have laws if criminals won't follow them" nonsense you bring out every time someone makes a sensible suggestion. Hence my rape analogy. A law that literally does jacksh** to deter people. So, no, I'm not insulting your intelligence, you're just making an asinine argument just like LaPierre does when he tries to justify all the lobbying he does on behalf of gun manufacturers.