No one needs 15 rounds

[marshallnoise]

Not sure if serious or retarded.

How so retarded? Forums =/= twitter.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[The Dark Side of Will]

You can get into some pretty uncomfortable territory on this subject, and some might call you racist to even notice the correlation.

Like many other things, no one wants to confront the elephant in the room; why given similar conditions, why some demographics do not act like Asians and whites when it comes to violence (even worldwide), and how is this problem solved? Is it cultural (the no snitch rule means this is acceptable in that community?), or something else? It is a complex subject.

The data says what the data says... ignoring it to be politically correct won't help reduce crime.
Understanding the data, understanding WHY the data shows what it does and protecting the rights of the people involved will help us understand how to reduce crime.

It is interesting to note, that as Michael Moore alleged in Bowling for Columbine, Whites (really I think he means conservatives), would purchase guns out of fear of "dangerous minorities".

This is shown in this segment here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGYFRzf2Xww

Those on the left, would appear to advocate gun control measures out of fear of "dangerous minorities".

I'd call that racism... assuming that people will be criminals because of the color of their skin.

[z31maniac]

How so retarded? Forums =/= twitter.

I'm well aware that forums != twitter.

I'm saying the discussion here will have the same effect.

Nothing.

[frankenbeemer]

I'm well aware that forums != twitter.

I'm saying the discussion here will have the same effect.

Nothing.

Perhaps for some. I generally find something thought provoking in these threads despite the occasionally discouraging level of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and ad hominem attacks.

[profbooty]

I'd call that racism... assuming that people will be criminals because of the color of their skin.

I think that is partially what Moore was implying. One of the main points in that film is that Americans are afraid of just about everything, partially due to the media, and gun ownership is one way to allay those fears.

[marshallnoise]

I think that is partially what Moore was implying. One of the main points in that film is that Americans are afraid of just about everything, partially due to the media, and gun ownership is one way to allay those fears.

Or Americans are inherently individualistic and chose things that preserve the individual, if that is self defense, so be it.

To Moore, we are afraid. He is wrong in my opinion. We seek to preserve the self as is natural. Why he resents that is beyond me.

Ahh yes, great white guilt. White privilege which is the topic de jour.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[CorvallisBMW]

Yeah, you pretty much did.

"pretty much"? No. You're just accusing me of saying something because you wanted me to say it, so that you could lash back at me.

What the chart showed that you apparently missed is that countries without as many guns had higher rates of VIOLENT non-firearm crime than the US. Go read some Google results on "more guns less crime", educate yourself on what the reality of the situation.

Have you ever googled that yourself? Because all you'll get are a bunch of links to buy a book of the same title. If you've got actual evidence to show me, I'm open to it.

And acknowledging this, you'd still take away peoples' capability to defend themselves? Fuck you.

When did I ever say this? Did I ever say that people should be prohibited from defending themselves? Because I sure don't remember that. I DID say that people have a right to defend themselves, that I don't want to ban all guns, that I don't want to prevent law-abiding people from owning guns, and that you don't NEED an assault rifle with a 100-mag drum clip to defend yourself. So unless you feel that such as weapon is literally THE ONLY weapon in the world that you could use for self-defense, and that you had a case of temporary amnesia after reading my other posts, you are unashamedly incorrect about my statements.

Now, what about all the annual DGU's? The NRA says there are 3,000,000 each year, while the Brady Bunch says there are 150,000 each year... So say there are 1 million people each year who use a gun to avert an attack without firing it. Do you tell them "take your chances, you probably won't be in a wheelchair for the rest of your life"? If so, fuck you again.

So the NRA is not only quoting, but inflating and misleading an already debunked and completely unscientific study? I guess I'm not surprised. They'd lie out of their mother's asshole if it would advance their cause of zero gun restrictions period. The figures from the Brady campaign are based on actual, recorded instances of people using a weapon to fend off an attacker or assailant. Does that capture 100% of all such instances? No, of course not. Undoubtedly, some cases will go unreported. But if you believe the actual number is 2900% higher, you need to put down the crack pipe.

Here's the problem with everything you're saying about me: You're taking my position that some people, such as the mentally ill, convicted criminals, stalkers, domestic abusers, etc, should not be able to own a firearm, and twisting it in to "All guns should be banned and no one should ever have the right to defend themselves." In what universe are those things equatable? The laws I'm advocating for are supported by 90% of the American public and 74% of NRA members. They are in no way extreme, drastic, or infringing. But you WANT them to be, so that you can continue your vehement hatred of those with whom your own opinions do not line up with. So you're more than happy to lie outright to yourself and others, turning "I support background checks" in to "I want to take away all your guns", because it helps you justify your extremist view. So instead of twisting around my words and lying about it, maybe you should examine why you feel such a deep-seeded need to.

[ParsedOut]

Here's the problem with everything you're saying about me: You're taking my position that some people, such as the mentally ill, convicted criminals, stalkers, domestic abusers, etc, should not be able to own a firearm, and twisting it in to "All guns should be banned and no one should ever have the right to defend themselves." In what universe are those things equatable? The laws I'm advocating for are supported by 90% of the American public and 74% of NRA members. They are in no way extreme, drastic, or infringing. But you WANT them to be, so that you can continue your vehement hatred of those with whom your own opinions do not line up with. So you're more than happy to lie outright to yourself and others, turning "I support background checks" in to "I want to take away all your guns", because it helps you justify your extremist view. So instead of twisting around my words and lying about it, maybe you should examine why you feel such a deep-seeded need to.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with universal background checks in theory, I certainly don't. However, in order to enforce the closing of the private sale "gun show" loophole and requiring background checks (I also support) it would require a national registry of gun owners and what they own. THAT is the highly contested issue. History has shown that all confiscations start with a registry. The fact that certain politicians have openly said (which means there are many more with the same hidden agenda) don't want Americans to own firearms...period. Not saying YOU'RE saying that, but you can't have the enhanced background checks without a registry. Unless you can think of one that works, by all means share it here and with your representatives.

*edit* For god sakes stop calling them assault rifes and clips. You sound like the uneducated liberal media you're parroting which doesn't help your credibility as a knowledgeable person on the subject.

[marshallnoise]

I don't think anyone here has a problem with universal background checks in theory, I certainly don't. However, in order to enforce the closing of the private sale "gun show" loophole and requiring background checks (I also support) it would require a national registry of gun owners and what they own. THAT is the highly contested issue. History has shown that all confiscations start with a registry. The fact that certain politicians have openly said (which means there are many more with the same hidden agenda) don't want Americans to own firearms...period. Not saying YOU'RE saying that, but you can't have the enhanced background checks without a registry. Unless you can think of one that works, by all means share it here and with your representatives.

*edit* For god sakes stop calling them assault rifes and clips. You sound like the uneducated liberal media you're parroting which doesn't help your credibility as a knowledgeable person on the subject.

Registration leads to confiscation. History proves that.

Just look what Connecticut did. http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/invest...236670031.html

Basically, a previously legal firearm was deemed illegal forcing people to give up their AR-15 or register it with the state police. You instantly turn law-abiding citizens into criminals when they don't want the government to know that they own one.

The very next step for those who do register their AR-15s is confiscation when lawmakers decide that they are too scary.

All brought about by an irrational fear of an inanimate object. The whole concept of the law is bizarre. You can't even bring one into the state and register it. If caught, you can be arrested on the spot.

It really pisses me off.

[ParsedOut]

Registration leads to confiscation. History proves that.

Either you didn't read what I wrote or you quoted the wrong person.

[marshallnoise]

Either you didn't read what I wrote or you quoted the wrong person.

I was not arguing with you. I was agreeing with you. Adding on to the points you made. Sorry for not making that clear.

[The Dark Side of Will]

"pretty much"? No. You're just accusing me of saying something because you wanted me to say it, so that you could lash back at me.

Did you read what you wrote?

Have you ever googled that yourself? Because all you'll get are a bunch of links to buy a book of the same title. If you've got actual evidence to show me, I'm open to it.

You can lead a horse to water...

When did I ever say this? Did I ever say that people should be prohibited from defending themselves? Because I sure don't remember that. I DID say that people have a right to defend themselves, that I don't want to ban all guns, that I don't want to prevent law-abiding people from owning guns, and that you don't NEED an assault rifle with a 100-mag drum clip to defend yourself. So unless you feel that such as weapon is literally THE ONLY weapon in the world that you could use for self-defense, and that you had a case of temporary amnesia after reading my other posts, you are unashamedly incorrect about my statements.

Quote yourself talking about the rights of people to defend themselves with firearms.

As for your viewpoints
A) You would prefer assault to homicide
B) Bruises heal and things can be replaced
C) Any of the above are preferable to people getting killed

These are viewpoints you've expressed. Putting two and two together sure sounds like you want people to lie back and be defenseless victims because you'd would prefer that over people getting killed with guns

So the NRA is not only quoting, but inflating and misleading an already debunked and completely unscientific study? I guess I'm not surprised.

OTOH...
Brief google: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...y-again-still/

" In response, the Clinton Department of Justice commissioned a study from Doctors Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig. That study concluded that there were 1.46 million DGUs per year."

They'd lie out of their mother's asshole if it would advance their cause of zero gun restrictions period.

The Brady Campaign would do exactly the same thing to achieve their objectives. True believers believe the ends justify the means.

The figures from the Brady campaign are based on actual, recorded instances of people using a weapon to fend off an attacker or assailant. Does that capture 100% of all such instances? No, of course not. Undoubtedly, some cases will go unreported. But if you believe the actual number is 2900% higher, you need to put down the crack pipe.

The Brady Bunch's numbers are based on the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is as under-reported as Keck's 2.5M is over-reported.

What makes DGU's difficult to talk about is that they are unreported BY DEFINITION. Why would someone report a crime that was never committed?

Here's the problem with everything you're saying about me: You're taking my position that some people, such as the mentally ill, convicted criminals, stalkers, domestic abusers, etc, should not be able to own a firearm, and twisting it in to "All guns should be banned and no one should ever have the right to defend themselves." In what universe are those things equatable? The laws I'm advocating for are supported by 90% of the American public and 74% of NRA members. They are in no way extreme, drastic, or infringing.

Are you naive enough to think that "reasonable restrictions" stop with background checks? The "big voices" talking about reasonable restrictions in public have also made their ultimate aims clear in other venues.

Go look up the definition of infringement... Infringements against everyone's 2nd amendment rights have been escalating for decades.

According to your definition of infringement, as long as I can buy a single shot .22 pistol, my rights of gun ownership have not been infringed. This is NOT in line with any legal or lexical definition of "infringement". Even court opinions balance the *significance* of an infringement against *expected* reductions in crime. NO ONE believes that 2nd amendment rights are not being infringed.

And the WaPo is only a tiny bit more credible than the Brady Bunch when it comes to reporting on gun issues.

[The Dark Side of Will]

However, in order to enforce the closing of the private sale "gun show" loophole and requiring background checks (I also support) it would require a national registry of gun owners and what they own. THAT is the highly contested issue. History has shown that all confiscations start with a registry.

THIS.

Simply recording who gets checked gives the Federal government a list that's very close to a national list of gun owners. The FBI has already drawn attention for retaining that information when they're required by law to dispose of it. Same with the ATF illegally copying FFL documentation.


If the term has a definition at all, an Assault Rifle is a military weapon.
A civilian AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that is functionally no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. Its appearance just happens to scare ignorant hoplophobes.

Don't be part of the terminology problem ;)

[The Dark Side of Will]

Here's some good background check comedy:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/134705-my-nics-denial-overturned-ish-im-confused.html

Local PD issues erroneous warrant for a traffic infraction based on the officer's failure to verify insurance.
NICS finds there's a warrant
NICS denies the purchase
Guy has to go through a bunch of hoops, but gets NICS denial overturned

Aside from the fact a traffic citation has NOTHING to do with buying guns, this is a goofy system.

[CorvallisBMW]

I don't think anyone here has a problem with universal background checks in theory, I certainly don't. However, in order to enforce the closing of the private sale "gun show" loophole and requiring background checks (I also support) it would require a national registry of gun owners and what they own. THAT is the highly contested issue. History has shown that all confiscations start with a registry. The fact that certain politicians have openly said (which means there are many more with the same hidden agenda) don't want Americans to own firearms...period. Not saying YOU'RE saying that, but you can't have the enhanced background checks without a registry. Unless you can think of one that works, by all means share it here and with your representatives.

Why would it require a national registry? We already have background checks, and there's no registry. How would closing loopholes mandate the creation of one?

*edit* For god sakes stop calling them assault rifes and clips. You sound like the uneducated liberal media you're parroting which doesn't help your credibility as a knowledgeable person on the subject.

You're correct, 'clip' is not a good term to use. I've tried to use 'mag' or 'magazine' in all of my posts but that one was written in a hurry. However 'assault rifle' is a widely-used and accepted term. I realize that there are negative connotations associated with it, which some people don't like, but the term is nearly universally used and accepted.