Pro-gun myths busted

[Ether-D]

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.

[The Dark Side of Will]

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.

In focusing on guns, YOU are ignoring the "real issue". The real issue in crime prevention are the sociological problems you've listed elsewhere.

[The Dark Side of Will]

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?

We're not ignoring straw purchases.
What we don't want is the ATF definition of straw purchase to include every transfer of a firearm from one person to another, which is certainly what the ATF wants, so that they can regulate EVERY transfer.

[The Dark Side of Will]

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.

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?

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.

[2761377]

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

[BraveUlysses]

Are you talking about the "why is nobody talking about..." thread? Or was it a different thread that was deleted entirely? Usually the mods just lock threads with outright racism and let everything else fly no matter how weird it is, so that is pretty disappointing if that policy changed

[2761377]

Nobody is deleting posts here but your persecution complex is adorable

au contraire, mon frere- I had a most cogent post in the ISIS/Christian thread deleted. in it I described the anti-Christian bias of Leftists worldwide. I guess the truth of that hit too close to home.

very disappointing as I had thought there was a true appreciation(or at least tolerance) for all thought here.

excepting you and einhander, of course.

[ParsedOut]

Nobody is deleting posts here but your persecution complex is adorable

Time to come up with some new material Brave.

[BraveUlysses]

Nobody is deleting posts here but your persecution complex is adorable

[2761377]

The "Efficacy" of Universal Background Checks

on the off chance this post will not be deleted by a leftist mod, allow me to advert you all to this news story regarding the need for so-called "universal Background Checks".

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2014/07/25/colorado-gun-law-relies-on-flawed-estimate

your typical foaming-at-the-mouth libtard will trot out the threadbare "fact" that 40% of gun sales go unaccounted. they propose that all gun sales go through an FFL dealer. according to Colorado records if that state's first year of such a requirement show that either-

A) people are willing to break that law;

or more likely-

B) not nearly that many guns are sold between individuals.

[ParsedOut]

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.

So by you saying we should focus on "FFL's that violate federal law" you meant a proposed law that incorporates a registry? See, you didn't make that clear. Don't call me a liar because you fail to use the words you hold in such high regard.

I'm going to stand by my belief that a registry would turn into a very bad thing for lawful gun owners, not immediately but the end result isn't good. I'm also not the only one who feels this way, hundreds of thousands of Americans do as well. THAT is why the last attempt for federal gun control fell on it's face, not the NRA (like everyone loves to blame) it's because the law makers know the backlash from their constituents would be harsh. See the recall in Colorado as proof.

I've also said MANY MANY times (feel free to search it, you're good at that) we should focus on violent crime as a whole and address the causes instead of trying to focus on ONE particular method/tool used to commit these acts. That is where the money, legislation, time, lobbying, etc, etc, etc should be pointed. Just because my solution is different than yours doesn't mean I'm plugging my ears and blindly arguing.

With that, I'm out.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.