Pro-gun myths busted

[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?

[marshallnoise]

Do not feed the troll.

[BraveUlysses]

Citation?

This is the case he's referring to:

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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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]

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.

[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

[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).

[smooth]

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.

Where did you hear that Woodstock, GA has been voted the safest place to live?
It has about half as much violent and property crime as the rest of Georgia, but it's a tiny place (with around 20,000 people living in it). There shouldn't be *any* crime in a town that small but, measuring crime relative to density, it's twice as bad as the rest of Georgia.

Irvine, CA is actually the safest city according the the data. In fact, it's regularly listed as the top city over 200,000 population to live in (and interestingly three out of ten of cities listed as safest are in California where we don't require everyone to own a firearm): http://lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/crime/10-safest-large/

Irvine is a planned city based on the principles of my education: social ecology. Mrssleeve flipped his shit and started launching into all sorts of nonsense about social ecologists when I mentioned that before in a different discussion. He doesn't really know what he's talking about, or what social ecologists are, but it has the word "social" in it, which is grounds for every red-blooded, freedom lubbin' 'Merican to get his hackles up!

[ParsedOut]

So I have a question for you smoothie. If California already is the gun free haven you like to pretend it is, why are you so hell bent on federal gun control? Are you stuck so far up your own ass that you think your way of thought is 'what's best' for the entire country? If you use the excuse that CA is not as safe as it should be since gangbangers can load up trucks full of guns in AZ and bring them over please punch yourself in the dick because you're being ridiculous.

[smooth]

Where have I said California is a gun free haven?

I've said the opposite--we have guns all over the place, and we carry them, too; we just fucking register them!

You just can't pull your head out of your ass long enough to understand the reality of the situation is that registering guns and making it more difficult for people who shouldn't have access to them doesn't mean law abiding, responsible citizens have to be in a world without guns.

That's the nonsense you keep spewing--because you either believe it or believe whoever does your thinking for you. I don't know which it is, but I'd sure like to know where you and people like Mrs.Sleeve get your "information" about California. You two have incorrectly stated that California: doesn't allow citizens to carry, doesn't allow citizens to defend our homes, improperly confiscates properly registered firearms, and is a "gun free" state, among other juicy tidbits of misinformation.

[BraveUlysses]

So I have a question for you smoothie. If California already is the gun free haven you like to pretend it is, why are you so hell bent on federal gun control? Are you stuck so far up your own ass that you think your way of thought is 'what's best' for the entire country? If you use the excuse that CA is not as safe as it should be since gangbangers can load up trucks full of guns in AZ and bring them over please punch yourself in the dick because you're being ridiculous.

This is why it's difficult to discuss this topic with you: you're unable to discuss an argument without you making up a list of bullshit strawmen against the person you're arguing with.