Pro-gun myths busted

[smooth]

You're the one who's insistent that every gun transferred privately is on its way to a crime scene.

Where did I insist this? Are you sure you aren't confused? If someone says that the majority of guns used in crimes are obtained via straw purchases, or if someone says that all guns used in crimes started out as legal sales at one time, that's not the same thing as saying that every gun transferred via private party is on its way to a crime scene. When you reveres the statement like that you've committed a logical fallacy. So far, you and a few other people have demonstrated a significant lack of logical coherence in your statements so you should probably clear that up before you make those kinds of incorrect assessments of someone else's statements.

The huge chunk of data YOU are missing is the number of fathers buying their sons guns and then those sons NOT going out and NOT committing crimes with those guns. This is the bread and butter of private gun transfers. Every gun rights denier's scheme to prevent straw purchases I've ever heard explained ALSO prevents these people from disposing of private property as they see fit.

If every scheme to regulate private sales you've ever heard of denies people from dispensing of their private property, then you need to educate yourself more about the topic.

Even in California, where every private party transfer has to go through an FFL, interfamilial transfers are as simple as the recipient obtaining an HSC (handgun safety certificate) http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/hscfaqs.

Strangers also transfer guns all day, every day here in California. No one is preventing strangers from dispensing of their private property however they wish, except if you mean that you'd like to break the law and dispense of your private property to people who can't legally own a firearm (which is really where your arguments tend to fall apart under scrutiny).

[marshallnoise]

Ginsberg has said time and time again that international law should trump our constitution. I would say that fits an agenda.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[BraveUlysses]

Ok, I'll agree with you there, there's been many, many bad decisions by the SC. That said, the merits or faults in any SC case should be discussed not brushed aside.

[ParsedOut]

The SC has a political agenda? I don't think you realize what you're insinuating.

Maybe agenda isn't the best word, but belief that just because the Supreme Court rules something doesn't necessarily mean it's "right". They are humans with political leanings and wouldn't be surprised if there is some pressure to rule one direction vs the other.

Wow, thanks for that insight! if only we had considered such an obvious solution to this country's crime problems!

[BraveUlysses]

Wow, thanks for that insight! if only we had considered such an obvious solution to this country's crime problems!

[blizake500]

Down here in Ga we live a little different. Woodstock, Ga is voted one of the safest places to live in the US. Why? Because there is a law that every person in Woodstock must have a gun in their household. Just think if that was a law for every household across America. That would stop so much crime. Just my opinion.

[BraveUlysses]

The SC has a political agenda? I don't think you realize what you're insinuating.

[ParsedOut]

the Supreme Court just ruled on this. Short version is that you're wrong (as usual).

Yep, and the Supreme Court is 100% unbiased without any sort of political agenda...yep.

[BraveUlysses]

Citation?

This is the case he's referring to:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/16/justic...traw-purchase/

[marshallnoise]

Do not feed the troll.

[The Dark Side of Will]

It is an outlier case once you stop conflating the discussion of the source of guns used in crimes with parents buying children guns.

You're the one who's insistent that every gun transferred privately is on its way to a crime scene.
You need to get it through your thick PhD skull that private transfers are the rule and use in a crime is the exception.

Yes, a large fraction of crime guns came from "straw purchases"--whatever that means--BUT those are a small faction of private transfers of guns.

You want to regulate ALL private transfers of guns.
The implicit goal, which is to intercept crime guns before they are used in crime, is laudable, but the tool--the idea of the straw purchase--is a blunt axe or maybe even a double jack when a laproscopic scalpel is the only thing that could get the job done.

Fundamentally, characterizing any purchase as a straw purchase requires demonstrable intent on the part of the purchaser, which is hard to come by.

The article isn't about anything other than determining that the majority of guns used in street crimes are obtained via straw purchases rather than being stolen.

I'm not arguing that. The data is what it is.

The incidence of fathers buying their sons guns, and then those sons going out and committing crimes with those guns, is an outlier case.

Correct.
The huge chunk of data YOU are missing is the number of fathers buying their sons guns and then those sons NOT going out and NOT committing crimes with those guns. This is the bread and butter of private gun transfers. Every gun rights denier's scheme to prevent straw purchases I've ever heard explained ALSO prevents these people from disposing of private property as they see fit.

interesting...your entire position falls apart since as soon as a state that you don't live in passes a law restricting what it wants you get your panties all bunched up and go whining to the supreme court to overturn the state's regulations.

if you really believed what you just wrote you'd let states do what they want and just stay in arizona where your state lets you do what you want to do.

Are you familiar with the concept of "standing" to sue? If he doesn't have standing (IOW, hasn't suffered damages due to the laws of the state in question) then he can't "whine to the supreme court". If he has suffered damages, then it's his right to whine to the Supreme Court (after going through the process in all appropriate lower courts, of course).

As far as getting panties bunched up... All of us have the right to have opinions about the laws of other States and to conduct lobbying activities related to the passage of laws in other States. You should be happy for that, because it means that Bloomberg can conduct anti-gun rights lobbying activities in States other than the one in which he resides.

You think that California's gun laws don't do a "damn thing" about gun crime in our state.

No, we think the laws make the crime worse.

explain how the feds are preventing the states from managing themselves as intended

By threatening to withhold Federal highway money whenever the States don't want to comply with an onerous and unconstitutional Federal mandate.

The EPA, OSHA, DoEd, waffleswaffleswaffles, and 3/4 of the cabinet departments do things that are unconstitutional.

the Supreme Court just ruled on this. Short version is that you're wrong (as usual).

Citation?

[smooth]

I assume.

Fucking idiot.

the amount of vitriol you spew on these forums is rather pathetic and actually quite sad. I can't even imagine the shitty existence you feel to cause you to act like this to complete strangers on an internet forum.

The way you worded that, is as if it was sold to a person that would other wise be able to walk in him self and get it.

A fucking straw is buy is when guy A who cant purchase a weapon for what ever reason hes been flagged or barred. Asks guy B to make the transaction. Guy B walks into store with the EXPRESS INTENT to buy the weapon for Guy A. That is a straw buy.

Just because you sell a weapon you bought yesterday to your neighbor because he likes it more than you thought you were going too IS NOT A FUCKING STRAW, there is no time defined that you have to keep a weapon. A straw buy is based on the fucking intent of the buyer at time of original sale, not what he does with it latter down the line, this is how the law reads. This why your ilk like to say a straw buy is a hard crime to prove, you are attempting to move the goal posts to fit your agenda, with no legal precedent or statutes (that I know of) to support it . This is how the law has been fucking interpreted and up held by law enforcement this is not my opinion but how the god dammed law is applied, and how the courts have upheld the statutes since the 80's .

Your the one whom is sticking with a the line of argument that is false, and you bludgeoning the deceased equine with it for months on end does not change that fact.



Um I have "off loaded" 2 firearms in my life time in to "the public space" I still know right where they are located and know the guys I sold them too buy at least one firearm a month, at retail or private transaction, both have had CCW permit for as long as I can remember, dont talk to me about due diligence . Maybe if you did not live in a state that made it so difficult for law abiding citizens to carry a firearm your "gun crime" rates might not be so high in your urban areas.

the Supreme Court just ruled on this. Short version is that you're wrong (as usual).

[smooth]

explain how the feds are preventing the states from managing themselves as intended

[ParsedOut]

are you supportive of NY passing a law that bans all hand guns in the state?

BTW, I know this is difficult for you to parse out, but I'm not the one saying that states should be able to do whatever the hell they want and for the federal government to just sit back and stfu. so your questioning of my pushing for comprehensive federal gun regulation reform is misplaced.

Supportive? Of course not, but you don't see me crying about it or lobbying for people nationwide to rally against them. The people of NY have options, they can live with the laws put in place by the people they voted into office, they can recall said officials or they can move away to another state that more closely fits their ideals. I feel like we're talking in circles here, you're grasping for a point that isn't there.

Whatever they hell they want? States should be able to do whatever their elected officials deem represents the will of their constituents, as long as they are constitutionally sound. I forgot, you socialist types have a hard time grasping these concepts.

[smooth]

When did I say I should have any influence about what CA or NY does? Please, quote me. You know how to use the search button. If I'm not mistaken, YOU'RE the one pushing for federal laws that impact every state. So yeah, you don't understand the purpose of a Republic.

Yeah, I think it's fun discussing things other than cars on car forums. No one is forcing you to post your pseudo-intellectual drivel.

are you supportive of NY passing a law that bans all hand guns in the state?

BTW, I know this is difficult for you to parse out, but I'm not the one saying that states should be able to do whatever the hell they want and for the federal government to just sit back and stfu. so your questioning of my pushing for comprehensive federal gun regulation reform is misplaced.