Pro-gun myths busted

[ST1G]

rape is now a laughing matter. but srsly India is a fucked up place to be a woman.

No kidding. And I was laughing at Einhander not rape.

[The Dark Side of Will]

That's why I said REPORTED.

It's the same situation no matter the country. You think all rapes are reported in the US?

For fuck's sake.

So you're admitting that your argument is trumped up bullshit? nice. At least you can admit it.

% of rapes that get reported in the US? Who knows, but I'm going to guess 40%.

% of rapes that get reported in India? Who knows, but I'm going to guess 0.04%. Nothing happens to the perp, and the victim gets punished by the culture, so why bother reporting?

[cunninglinguist]

"Rape" is the Hindi word for "hello."

[smooth]

And this could describe a father buying his son a gun for his birthday.

For example, the CT shooter took his mother's gun without permission. Does the ATF count that as a theft?

A lot of undefined terms are getting tossed around but if you're using "gun" to refer to handguns specifically than it very well could, and should, refer to a father buying his son a gun for his birthday. Age of legal ownership, and use under control of a parent/guardian, varies by state, but I'm interpreting your question to be what happens when a parent purchases a gun for a child that isn't legally allowed to own it. That's not what the description is describing, and when discussing the vector of guns making it into underage gang members' hands via adult straw purchases it's disingenuous to try and beat the bushes with another illegal behavior...regardless of whether you think it should be ok to do the behavior.

Obviously the ATF counted that as a theft. What would you, or any sensible person, consider that behavior? But more importantly, why are you defending bad policy on the basis of outlier cases? Every single hypothetical you present is an outlier case but you seem to be implying that policy should be guided by those unlikely situations rather than the more prevalent occurrences.

[ParsedOut]

But more importantly, why are you defending bad policy on the basis of outlier cases? Every single hypothetical you present is an outlier case but you seem to be implying that policy should be guided by those unlikely situations rather than the more prevalent occurrences.

outlier != irrelevant...but you're one of those "for the greater good" types so I can't blame you for not recognizing that.

[mrsleeve]

A lot of undefined terms are getting tossed around but if you're using "gun" to refer to handguns specifically than it very well could, and should, refer to a father buying his son a gun for his birthday. Age of legal ownership, and use under control of a parent/guardian, varies by state, but I'm interpreting your question to be what happens when a parent purchases a gun for a child that isn't legally allowed to own it. That's not what the description is describing, and when discussing the vector of guns making it into underage gang members' hands via adult straw purchases it's disingenuous to try and beat the bushes with another illegal behavior...regardless of whether you think it should be ok to do the behavior.

Obviously the ATF counted that as a theft. What would you, or any sensible person, consider that behavior? But more importantly, why are you defending bad policy on the basis of outlier cases? Every single hypothetical you present is an outlier case but you seem to be implying that policy should be guided by those unlikely situations rather than the more prevalent occurrences.

Jesus Christ. Not an outlier scenario, in fact its a very very common occurrence in much of the more rural parts of the country.... Just because its a foreign concept to you dose not make it an exception to the norm or a fucking straw buy. Everything to you seems to fall into the straw category ..............

[smooth]

Jesus Christ. Not an outlier scenario, in fact its a very very common occurrence in much of the more rural parts of the country.... Just because its a foreign concept to you dose not make it an exception to the norm or a fucking straw buy. Everything to you seems to fall into the straw category ..............

I didn't say that. It's you guys that are trying to use familial purchases to ignore the reality that guns make it into people's hands through straw purchases.

I mean what the fuck are you guys arguing here? just whatever you think there is to argue about? are you arguing that it should be legal for parents to buy their children firearms? that's a dumbass argument for all sorts of reasons (one of them being that it's a felony that you argued gun owners don't do) but it's a non-sequitur to me posting the statistics that more crime is committed by guns that are bought via straw purchases than people stealing them.

What part of that isn't making it into your grey matter?
The article isn't talking about parents buying guns for their kids and them going out on murder sprees...it's talking about all those street crimes you guys constantly bellyache about sourcing their guns from legal vectors because those are the easiest places to obtain guns :\

[smooth]

outlier != irrelevant...but you're one of those "for the greater good" types so I can't blame you for not recognizing that.

no one said that outliers are irrelevant, but it's stupid to build policy on outliers while ignoring the problems

I know you just like to argue to argue so it's kinda pointless to engage with you, but people have to consider how a law impacts everyone.

parents buying guns for their kids is already illegal so not sure what you guys are advocating here anyway

the issue here is that a number of you guys keep saying that the majority of guns used in crime get stolen and that's how they hit the streets. I posted the relevant research on the topic disputing that claim. unless you come up with some alternative evidence just accept the fact that your assumption was incorrect and either continue being bullheaded about the topic or change your stance in relation to the evidence.

[mrsleeve]

I didn't say that. It's you guys that are trying to use familial purchases to ignore the reality that guns make it into people's hands through straw purchases.

I mean what the fuck are you guys arguing here? just whatever you think there is to argue about? are you arguing that it should be legal for parents to buy their children firearms? that's a dumbass argument for all sorts of reasons (one of them being that it's a felony that you argued gun owners don't do) but it's a non-sequitur to me posting the statistics that more crime is committed by guns that are bought via straw purchases than people stealing them.

What part of that isn't making it into your grey matter?
The article isn't talking about parents buying guns for their kids and them going out on murder sprees...it's talking about all those street crimes you guys constantly bellyache about sourcing their guns from legal vectors because those are the easiest places to obtain guns :\

What is a 42 year old man thats 6' 2" and 225lbs going to do with a Pink 22lr cricket with a pull length of 12 inches ??? Oh yeah he owns it but for all intents and purposes its prolly going to be his 10 year old daughters 1st fire arm.............. It will remain His firearm until its sold or she is old enough under state law to transfer it to her. Since its family a firearm may pass with out any type of paper trail up or down to direct family.. Also in most rural states minors that have completed a hunter safety course are allowed to be in possession a firearm as young as 12 or 13 IIRC, (for appropriate lawful activity) though the weapon is legally their parents for another 5 years......

I suppose since dad bought a 22lr, and a rem 870 and never fired them, (I am the only one thats shot either of them for the most part) and handed them to me when I was 8 and 12 and I still own both of those weapons, those were straw purchase's in your eyes I assume. They were my fathers firearms, until I was old enough for them to be transferred to me if I were to go to the store and buy them my self.....

Fucking idiot.

[ParsedOut]

no one said that outliers are irrelevant, but it's stupid to build policy on outliers while ignoring the problems

I know you just like to argue to argue so it's kinda pointless to engage with you, but people have to consider how a law impacts everyone.

parents buying guns for their kids is already illegal so not sure what you guys are advocating here anyway

the issue here is that a number of you guys keep saying that the majority of guns used in crime get stolen and that's how they hit the streets. I posted the relevant research on the topic disputing that claim. unless you come up with some alternative evidence just accept the fact that your assumption was incorrect and either continue being bullheaded about the topic or change your stance in relation to the evidence.

Straw purchases are illegal, have been for a long time. What do you suggest is the answer?

[smooth]

Straw purchases are illegal, have been for a long time. What do you suggest is the answer?

focusing on the vector: FFL's that violate federal law

again, the point is that some people here are focusing on stolen guns as the main vector of street level gun crime and ignoring where the real issue is.

I already pointed out the reality of some of your favorite examples of "failed" gun laws in places like Chicago where the main source of the guns don't originate in the city but the suburbs where the laws are less strict.

but then we're back to your imaginary boogyman of the feds building registries so they can strip every law abiding citizen of their guns in the apocalypse so we come to the impasse that you force on the conversation every single chance you get

[ParsedOut]

focusing on the vector: FFL's that violate federal law

again, the point is that some people here are focusing on stolen guns as the main vector of street level gun crime and ignoring where the real issue is.

I already pointed out the reality of some of your favorite examples of "failed" gun laws in places like Chicago where the main source of the guns don't originate in the city but the suburbs where the laws are less strict.

but then we're back to your imaginary boogyman of the feds building registries so they can strip every law abiding citizen of their guns in the apocalypse so we come to the impasse that you force on the conversation every single chance you get

I think we should focus on FFL's that violate federal law, enforce the laws we have.

I didn't bring up a registry or gun confiscations, you did. I'm crazy and you're a dick, now that we're square...carry on.

[smooth]

I think we should focus on FFL's that violate federal law, enforce the laws we have.

I didn't bring up a registry or gun confiscations, you did. I'm crazy and you're a dick, now that we're square...carry on.

why do you lie when I point out what you've said in relation to these threads? do you think people won't search your posts or that we have as short a memory span as you do?

You wrote off the ability for a gun to be used in self defense, instead they are only used for offenses. I was responding to that obviously ridiculous point.

As for background checks, I don't have any problem with the checks themselves. I understand the purpose they are intended to serve. I have a problem with the registry required to EFFECTIVELY enforce checks on private party sales. You can pass all the laws you want that say private sales must go through FFLs, blah blah blah but if there is no way to enforce where and to whom the firearms are going then the government is simply asking nicely to comply. Useless laws are useless.

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/search.php?searchid=17902199

[ParsedOut]

why do you lie when I point out what you've said in relation to these threads? do you think people won't search your posts or that we have as short a memory span as you do?



http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/sear...rchid=17902199

Wait. When did I say we shouldn't enforce the FFL laws that are in place? Or is that not what you meant? How does that relate to a registry? You brought up how I feel about a registry when talking about something totally different...and I'm the one who likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

[smooth]

Wait. When did I say we shouldn't enforce the FFL laws that are in place? Or is that not what you meant? How does that relate to a registry? You brought up how I feel about a registry when talking about something totally different...and I'm the one who likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

here's your disjointed logic:

when you walk into a store with the intent of doing a straw man purchase it's on the FFL to detect that and not sell the firearm

so the obvious cases of people standing around looking shady and picking a handful of guns out and then their buddy pays for them all and walks out the door and hands them out can be punished

but when someone walks into a store and buys a gun and then walks out of the store to his house and sells it out of his garage to an anonymous person and doesn't bother to do a background check or even care or have to, that's suddenly ok with you

so what do you think will happen? it really shouldn't be difficult to figure out...unless you're being intentionally obtuse: people will become more careful about their straw man purchases

so you have to come up with a solution to prevent those kinds of purchase, since those are where the majority of street crime guns are sourced...

enter tracking a gun from point a to z
then you pop up with the registry and confiscation boogyman
and you refuse to come up with an alternate solution. you just shut your brain down and plug your ears. so it leads everyone else standing here watching your behavior to the obvious conclusion that you really don't give a shit about the loopholes and you're just arguing over bullshit. if you saw a problem with the situation you'd be trying to rectify it.