Another week, another school shooting

[smooth]

I am extremely smart and highly educated and I make the assumption that other people I'm interacting with are also intelligent human beings. That's why I don't call you stupid or insult you in my posts. That's also why I took you off my ignore list when you stated you wanted to have an honest and non-inflammatory discussion. So I don't know about whether you should go back to a cave but I do know if you want to benefit from my company start treating with the respect I deserve and that you said you were going to extend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CorvallisBMW]

It's a catch 22 on all fronts, and I'm sorry but I'm not willing to give in on a registry to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Violence is the problem, there are root causes of this problem among young men in our country, regulating the tool used in these crimes will not stop them from happening.

This makes for a nice soundbite and all, but you're missing a few key points. The US does not hold a monopoly on violence. We don't hold a monopoly on bad parenting. Or gangs. Or disenfranchised youth, or poverty, or mental health issues, or the mentally ill, or, or, or... What we do hold a monopoly on is guns. At 88.8 guns per 100 people, we have the highest rate of gun ownership in the developed world and therefor, quite logically, the highest rate of gun homicide. Given that fact, why do you think guns are a non-factor? And if guns aren't driving the gun homicide rate, what is?

[ParsedOut]

You simply prove to the state that you did your due diligence before selling the firearm.

The background check gets done, the state keeps a record of you selling the gun, or you keep it in your safe if that makes you feel better, so that if it ever shows up on the street the cops run a check on the gun and your name comes up as last owner but you're in the clear because you made the buyer jump through the same hoop that an FFL would have.

What does it matter that the state keeps a record of you selling your firearm? You don't own it anymore!

The good it would do is make sure that anyone who couldn't pass a background check when going through a legit dealer would also not be able to show up at someone's garage or craigslist and purchase a firearm without a background check.

You're missing the point. What good does a record of me selling a gun do when there was never a record of me owning it?! So you purpose I own a gun without being on a registry, I meet seller at FFL, they do a check on him, he passes, I submit a record that I sold a gun (that they never knew about!) and that I no longer own this gun with S/N that was never linked to me in the first place. So now if it's used in a crime they can come hassle me about a gun (they never knew about until I sold) to find out who I sold it to? Or do I simply show them an FFL "receipt" with an anonymous buyer to prove that I did it legitimately? Once again, I ask you Mr Educated, how do you enforce a law on private party transfers without a registry?

[ParsedOut]

This makes for a nice soundbite and all, but you're missing a few key points. The US does not hold a monopoly on violence. We don't hold a monopoly on bad parenting. Or gangs. Or disenfranchised youth, or poverty, or mental health issues, or the mentally ill, or, or, or... What we do hold a monopoly on is guns. At 88.8 guns per 100 people, we have the highest rate of gun ownership in the developed world and therefor, quite logically, the highest rate of gun homicide. Given that fact, why do you think guns are a non-factor? And if guns aren't driving the gun homicide rate, what is?

Of course the rate of gun homicide is higher since we have more guns. It's like saying there are more cow related accidents in states with higher cow populations, it doesn't mean anything. The statistics have been posted ad nauseum in these threads, our TOTAL violent crime rate per capita is much lower than you seem to acknowledge.

As for your other questions, I don't have time to spoon feed you information you'll ignore.

[ParsedOut]

I am extremely smart and highly educated and I make the assumption that other people I'm interacting with are also intelligent human beings. That's why I don't call you stupid or insult you in my posts. That's also why I took you off my ignore list when you stated you wanted to have an honest and non-inflammatory discussion. So I don't know about whether you should go back to a cave but I do know if you want to benefit from my company start treating with the respect I deserve and that you said you were going to extend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I called you ignorant to the details, that does not mean stupid. Anyway, feel free to add me back to your ignore list. Haha, I just read the part about "benefit from my company"...that really made me laugh, thanks for that. Good one.

[marshallnoise]

I called you ignorant to the details, that does not mean stupid. Anyway, feel free to add me back to your ignore list. Haha, I just read the part about "benefit from my company"...that really made me laugh, thanks for that. Good one.

Arrogant pick if you ask me. "Don't question my authority, I sit in the ivory tower!"

Fuck that noise.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[smooth]

questioning someone is one thing, insulting is another.

in any case, I'm done interacting with you. Ignore and report and hopefully the mods will clean what appears to have become a cesspool.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Hey smooth, I've been wanting to ask, what are the two triangular gray ! images supposed to mean?

[marshallnoise]

questioning someone is one thing, insulting is another.

in any case, I'm done interacting with you. Ignore and report and hopefully the mods will clean what appears to have become a cesspool.

I figured it would be a badge of honor for you to be shouted at from below your ivory tower?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

questioning someone is one thing, insulting is another.

in any case, I'm done interacting with you. Ignore and report and hopefully the mods will clean what appears to have become a cesspool.

I'm sorry that you mistook my comment as an insult, I was simply stating a fact that you were ignorant to the details of what you were trying to argue. Now if I called you an ignorant person, that's different. Just making a point here, no offense was intended and if you took it as such well then...you can grace the other members of this forum with your vast intelligence and superiority complex.

[smooth]

Hey smooth, I've been wanting to ask, what are the two triangular gray ! images supposed to mean?

They used to be my sedan and cabrio but I deleted that google+ profile they were located within

[CorvallisBMW]

Of course the rate of gun homicide is higher since we have more guns. It's like saying there are more cow related accidents in states with higher cow populations, it doesn't mean anything. The statistics have been posted ad nauseum in these threads, our TOTAL violent crime rate per capita is much lower than you seem to acknowledge.

But we're not talking about total violent crime, we're talking about gun homicides. That was the original topic of this thread and it remains so. So please don't try to detour it.

As for your other questions, I don't have time to spoon feed you information you'll ignore.

I'm asking your personal opinion and the reasoning behind it, not to be spoon fed. You seem totally hell-bent on your opinions but can't answer even basic questions. Why? You claim to have studied these subjects at length, you should already know the answers.

I've noticed you're very good at ignoring questions that you don't have an answer for. So please, tell me:

1) What "debunked and false facts" did I mention in that post?
2) Given the 2nd amendment, in what possible scenario could you see the confiscation of all privately-held firearms?
2) Please explain how the laws regarding behavior are fundamentally more enforceable than those involving tools

The US does not hold a monopoly on violence. We don't hold a monopoly on bad parenting. Or gangs. Or disenfranchised youth, or poverty, or mental health issues, or the mentally ill, or, or, or... What we do hold a monopoly on is guns....if guns aren't driving the gun homicide rate, what is?

[ParsedOut]

But we're not talking about total violent crime, we're talking about gun homicides. That was the original topic of this thread and it remains so. So please don't try to detour it.

I'm asking your personal opinion and the reasoning behind it, not to be spoon fed. You seem totally hell-bent on your opinions but can't answer even basic questions. Why? You claim to have studied these subjects at length, you should already know the answers.

1) What "debunked and false facts" did I mention in that post?
2) Given the 2nd amendment, in what possible scenario could you see the confiscation of all privately-held firearms?
2) Please explain how the laws regarding behavior are fundamentally more enforceable than those involving tools

Why are you talking about gun homicides but ignoring the rest? Seems myopic and with agenda if you ask me.

1) I don't keep track of all the flawed articles you like to reference nor do I have time to go back and look through your posts. It would cause my brain to explode.
2) They're already doing on the state level, see NJ. Total confiscation is the goal, but it won't happen in one shot, it'll be chipped away at "seems reasonable" chunks.
2) Because you can only enforce behaviors. You can ban the use of an inanimate object in a behavior but banning a tool in itself is foolish and I can't believe I'm even having to type this out for you. What behavior that involves the tool of a gun should be banned that aren't already illegal?

[anabolice30]

We should just ban school shootings. Because it is impossible to obtain contraband or break any laws.

[CorvallisBMW]

Why are you talking about gun homicides but ignoring the rest? Seems myopic and with agenda if you ask me.

Because that's what this thread was started for: school shootings. I'm not talking about muggings, home robberies, rape or anything else. This whole thread has been devoted to gun crime and gun homicides. Please stop trying to take it off-topic.

1) I don't keep track of all the flawed articles you like to reference nor do I have time to go back and look through your posts. It would cause my brain to explode.

OK, I'll do it for you. Here's what I said:

Really? Because we've been registering automobiles for many, many decades now. And *yep*, I just checked, mine is still parked outside and has not in fact been confiscated. Fully automatic weapons and explosives are among the most heavily regulated and registered "tools" in the country, yet there have been no such confiscation efforts on those either. Given that the 2nd amendment clearly forbids it, in what possible scenario could you envision confiscation of all privately-held firearms??

Please note that I didn't link any articles, and nothing in that paragraph is in any way inaccurate. So I'm very confused by your post.

2) They're already doing on the state level, see NJ. Total confiscation is the goal, but it won't happen in one shot, it'll be chipped away at "seems reasonable" chunks.

Really? NJ banned all guns? That's news to me. For whom is total confiscation the goal? Where did you hear that? Can you show me any evidence that this secret, back-room unconstitutional conspiracy exists? And if it does, how do you propose that they will be able to pass and enforce laws that clearly violate the constitution?

3) Because you can only enforce behaviors. You can ban the use of an inanimate object in a behavior but banning a tool in itself is foolish and I can't believe I'm even having to type this out for you. What behavior that involves the tool of a gun should be banned that aren't already illegal?

Ummm... what?

First you say "Because you can only enforce behavior" but then you point out that those behaviors are already banned, implying the laws are ineffective. So which is it? Is it effective or ineffective?

You then say, "you can ban the use of an an inanimate object" but that "banning a tool is foolish". A tool is an inanimate object, so these statement again seem contradictory.

You also say that you support universal background checks, but then say that doing so would require a national registry, which you're opposed to. So again, we're left with contradictory statements.

I'm finding your posts increasingly difficult to follow.