Pro-gun myths busted

[ParsedOut]

ok, so I don't know what a Republic is but you're the one saying that you should have some say in California or NY laws while you live in Arizona?

You think law enforcement is lying when they publish research that the majority of guns used in street crime are procured via straw purchases.

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

oh and you think that trolling a car forum about these issues is fun

but I'm the delusional person in this conversation between me and you :rofl:

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.

[smooth]

You obviously don't realize what a Republic is or what the intention was/is. The federal government is out of control and overreaching, let the states manage themselves as intended. I'm not an anarchist, so sorry to disappoint.

ok, so I don't know what a Republic is but you're the one saying that you should have some say in California or NY laws while you live in Arizona?

You think law enforcement is lying when they publish research that the majority of guns used in street crime are procured via straw purchases.

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

oh and you think that trolling a car forum about these issues is fun

but I'm the delusional person in this conversation between me and you :rofl:

[ParsedOut]

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.

it's also bizarre to hear you prattling on about how you "love our Republic" since you've been posting how you completely distrust our entire governmental structure and think the government is out to get you and your guns.

You obviously don't realize what a Republic is or what the intention was/is. The federal government is out of control and overreaching, let the states manage themselves as intended. I'm not an anarchist, so sorry to disappoint.

Oh, and when exactly have I "gone whining to the supreme court"? I'm not a fan of how CA, MA, NY, CT, NJ, etc, etc, etc chooses to write their laws, but those lawmakers have been voted in by their people. The minority who don't like what's happening have the freedom to live in any state they choose. Don't like what's happening? Vote. You lose the vote and you lose your freedoms, move somewhere that shares your same ideals. If AZ became a liberal haven like CO has, you better believe I'd be packing bags and finding a better place to live.

[ParsedOut]

doesn't matter how difficult it is to buy a gun in California if someone can drive an hour away and purchase a truck full from people like parsedout and bring them back into California. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that regardless of how many times it's been pointed out to you speaks to your unwillingness to think about the issue.

Typical cop out argument. If you really think gangbangers in south central LA are taking "road trips" to AZ to buy $80 .380 handguns YOU'RE the nutjob here. Your state's gun laws aren't doing a damn thing to impact violent crime, these people with motives to hurt other people will always find a way. I may be a fantasist but you're delusional.

[smooth]

Nutjob #2 checking in.

Here's why I love our Republic. People like fruit smoothie who enjoy a nanny state where all "dangerous" things are taboo and restricted have the right to live in such a state. Others who choose to take greater responsibility for themselves and not worry so much about what their neighbor is doing also have the freedom to find a place to live. Leave the federal govt out of it and let the states do what they were intended to do.

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.

it's also bizarre to hear you prattling on about how you "love our Republic" since you've been posting how you completely distrust our entire governmental structure and think the government is out to get you and your guns.

[ParsedOut]

Nutjob #2 checking in.

Here's why I love our Republic. People like fruit smoothie who enjoy a nanny state where all "dangerous" things are taboo and restricted have the right to live in such a state. Others who choose to take greater responsibility for themselves and not worry so much about what their neighbor is doing also have the freedom to find a place to live. Leave the federal govt out of it and let the states do what they were intended to do.

[mrsleeve]

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.

[smooth]

I am unsure of what your trying to say. Either way the key word in that sentence, is INTENTION, it does not matter how long you keep the firearm, 2 year, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 days, 2 mins, its your property to do with as you see fit. If you decide you dont like, your neighbor likes it more than you, or just haveing buyers remorse. So long as your intention when you bought the weapon was to keep it and specifically for transfer to someone else at the time of sale then its not a fucking straw buy, like you trying to infer

so if you buy a gun and walk outside and give it to someone 3 minutes later then you want to believe that maybe, just maybe, the person intended to keep it but then changed his mind so it's not a straw buy?

and that's where your little bullshit commentary comes into the light...you have no respect for the law but every time you get called out on it you back track and prattle on and on about how you gun owners are generally a law abiding bunch and bitch and moan about anyone who questions your pure intentions

but in reality you couldn't give a shit less about the law and will do everything you can to circumvent it even going so far as to argue all day and night for months on end that so long as when you were standing at the counter and you answered on the federal form that you were buying the gun for yourself if you walk outside a mere few minutes later and "change your mind" that it's not a straw buy. people like you with cavalier attitudes about gun ownership and not really caring where they end up so long as it's not your direct problem (and by not being your direct problem you intentionally refuse to do your due diligence when off-loading a gun into the public space) are the main source of gun violence and gun crime in this country.

luckily no one buys your bullshit except for nut jobs

[mrsleeve]

Someone doesn't have the right to walk into a gun store and purchase a handgun with theintention of transferring the gun to someone outside the store who wouldn't have otherwise been barred from buying the gun himself. When you argue against that your intention to eviscerate any meaningful or sensible gun regulation becomes clear. Some argue that the laws in place should be enforced rather than implement new ones yet want to argue for maintaining regulations in an unenforceable state. Like this example: making it completely impossible to regulate private party transfers because it's all contingent on someone answering a form honestly and turning a blind eye to what happens as soon as the customer steps a foot away from the register.

I am unsure of what your trying to say. Either way the key word in that sentence, is INTENTION, it does not matter how long you keep the firearm, 2 year, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 days, 2 mins, its your property to do with as you see fit. If you decide you dont like, your neighbor likes it more than you, or just haveing buyers remorse. So long as your intention when you bought the weapon was to keep it and not specifically for transfer to someone else at the time of sale then its not a fucking straw buy, like you trying to infer

[ParsedOut]

[smooth]

The FIRST time I made the statement you quote, I did specify 18th birthday.

This isn't an outlier case. This is the bread and butter of the transfer of guns. How many gun owning fathers are there in the country who may want to give their sons guns? How many gun owners are there who may want to buy a gun as a present for a friend?

How many people buy a gun, decide they don't like it as much as they did in the store and then give it to someone else?

What's the difference between a gift and a sale?

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

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.
The incidence of fathers buying their sons guns, and then those sons going out and committing crimes with those guns, is an outlier case. Unless you want to argue that the majority of sons who have guns given to them go out and commit crimes...in which case you'd be undercutting your own argument for why we should allow that to happen at all!

Again, to be perfectly clear, the fact that parents purchase guns for their children is not an outlier case and I never stated that it was. I pointed out that those parent to child transfers account for a small portion of illegal crime that occurs in the streets, and that the majority of gun crime in the streets happens via straw purchases from non-guardian adults.

What that means, in terms of policy, is that minimizing the ability of adults to conduct unregulated transfers to minors is of paramount importance if we want to reduce the frequency of guns that get used in street crime while the issue of parent to child transfers is a separate matter that can be addressed within the context of legislation (although, to be frank, given what we know about brain function and maturity of males up to age 25, there's good argument to made for none of them being suitable to own firearms and use them under unsupervised conditions).


I'm still confused as to what you're arguing here...

Are you advocating for fathers being able to give or buy their underage sons handguns against the current laws in place?

The gun is private property. The owner has the right to give it to whom he wishes, and that transfer is none of the government's business, no matter what the government thinks of that person.

Someone doesn't have the right to walk into a gun store and purchase a handgun with the intention of transferring the gun to someone outside the store who wouldn't have otherwise been barred from buying the gun himself. When you argue against that your intention to eviscerate any meaningful or sensible gun regulation becomes clear. Some argue that the laws in place should be enforced rather than implement new ones yet want to argue for maintaining regulations in an unenforceable state. Like this example: making it completely impossible to regulate private party transfers because it's all contingent on someone answering a form honestly and turning a blind eye to what happens as soon as the customer steps a foot away from the register.

[marshallnoise]

Too fucking hot, when the weather breaks I'll be back to pissing off hippies in the desert.

+1

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

Hey guys. Just dropping in to say, maybe you all should go outside for a while (some to shoot yer guns, some to just pet some bunnies or whatever). It won't piss you off, guaranteed.



(this is how I end up laughing because of this thread, btw). K, bye.

Too fucking hot, when the weather breaks I'll be back to pissing off hippies in the desert.

[2761377]

I PM'd the only mod who comes in here, says he didn't do it.

Now that I think about it, there were a bunch of posts in the thread that are gone, including a terrible "what would the prince of darkness do" (LOL) by cabriolet.

it makes me think it was a server hiccup and thats why multiple posts are gone. i think the mods don't want anything to do with this subforum

thank you for your research. the history of freedom here is exactly what "the benefit of the doubt" means and I should have given it. this is the best forum in which I participate for freedom of speech. really, a refuge in that regard.

now, back to my 'nutjob' musings.

[BraveUlysses]

^^^
it was the "why is nobody talking about..." thread. my point was that the politics of specifically American media influence their coverage of Christianity.

I PM'd the only mod who comes in here, says he didn't do it.

Now that I think about it, there were a bunch of posts in the thread that are gone, including a terrible "what would the prince of darkness do" (LOL) by cabriolet.

it makes me think it was a server hiccup and thats why multiple posts are gone. i think the mods don't want anything to do with this subforum