If Hillary wins, they better expand Gitmo

[ParsedOut]

no one is asking why "nothing works"
in fact, we [criminologists] know a lot about what does work but lobbyists prevent sound legislation from passing that would do a lot toward reducing violence and crime in this country

Wait, this just got good. You're a criminologist that openly says he "doesn't bother considering the root cause of violence because it's stupid to try and think I can prevent crime" yet at the same time you know a lot about what does work to prevent crime? Am I in the twilight zone or are you going full retard on us right now?

[marshallnoise]

Wait, this just got good. You're a criminologist that openly says he "doesn't bother considering the root cause of violence because it's stupid to try and think I can prevent crime" yet at the same time you know a lot about what does work to prevent crime? Am I in the twilight zone or are you going full retard on us right now?

Rhetorical question is rhetorical. ;D

[smooth]

Wait, this just got good. You're a criminologist that openly says he "doesn't bother considering the root cause of violence because it's stupid to try and think I can prevent crime" yet at the same time you know a lot about what does work to prevent crime? Am I in the twilight zone or are you going full retard on us right now?

your memory can't be that short, right?

do you remember me quoting marshallnoise telling me how stupid it was to suggest that anyone could prevent crime and that this isn't minority report?

I quoted it for you when you assumed I was talking to you when I said I wasn't going to engage in discussion with people insulting me and calling me stupid. If you forgot go back and read through the thread. Now witness him trolling this thread in the same way. He's just a troll. If someone tries to say something he argues with that. In another thread he'll argue the opposite and argue against his original position.

In this thread he's trying to do that with the Chicago vs. Illinois suburbs issue (where he said in the other thread it's not an issue then posts in this thread that it is) and when I was talking about crime prevention in the other thread he tried to shit all over that and when I said fuck it if it's stupid I'm not going to bother wasting my time in the thread and since then he's trying to take pot-shots about me not discussing prevention.

[marshallnoise]

your memory can't be that short, right?

do you remember me quoting marshallnoise telling me how stupid it was to suggest that anyone could prevent crime and that this isn't minority report?

I quoted it for you when you assumed I was talking to you when I said I wasn't going to engage in discussion with people insulting me and calling me stupid. If you forgot go back and read through the thread. Now witness him trolling this thread in the same way. He's just a troll. If someone tries to say something he argues with that. In another thread he'll argue the opposite and argue against his original position.

In this thread he's trying to do that with the Chicago vs. Illinois suburbs issue (where he said in the other thread it's not an issue then posts in this thread that it is) and when I was talking about crime prevention in the other thread he tried to shit all over that and when I said fuck it if it's stupid I'm not going to bother wasting my time in the thread and since then he's trying to take pot-shots about me not discussing prevention.

Your view of history is so odd man. I didn't say straw-man purchases aren't an issue, its just an issue that is uncontrollable no matter how many laws you pass.

as the link you cited points out, that didn't exist for rifles prior to this year. so obviously, or at least obvious to me, it can't account for the confiscations you were referencing in the thread earlier. the confiscations you were referencing earlier happened because California maintains a roster of prohibited rifles and some people refused to abide by the law. Similar to the feds requiring registration of fully automatic weapons, California required registration of banned "assault weapons." They didn't use the registration to confiscate the weapons, however, as lots of people wrongly assume.

What they did was confiscate weapons that *weren't* registered according to the law within the timeframe. Some people either refused to register or registered their banned rifles after the cut-off date and, when it was found out, got themselves into trouble. But again, it wasn't the list itself that caused the issue it was people refusing to adhere to the law. The people who registered their banned rifles still get to keep them to this day. And if they want to sell them they simply swap out the banned features and sell it through an FFL.

none of what you wrote has anything to do with background checks. these things you're now bringing up are completely unrelated to background checks.

no, I don't bother considering the root cause of violence because it's stupid to try and think I can prevent crime

Did you not say that? Your memory is at question here. Not ours.

[ParsedOut]

your memory can't be that short, right?

do you remember me quoting marshallnoise telling me how stupid it was to suggest that anyone could prevent crime and that this isn't minority report?

I quoted it for you when you assumed I was talking to you when I said I wasn't going to engage in discussion with people insulting me and calling me stupid. If you forgot go back and read through the thread. Now witness him trolling this thread in the same way. He's just a troll. If someone tries to say something he argues with that. In another thread he'll argue the opposite and argue against his original position.

You didn't quote anything for me, I took what you said for face value not realizing that you were mocking another discussion you were having with another person, jeee how foolish I feel now. At any rate...your posts continue to get more and more interesting now that you're not a little girl about some strongly worded posts. I don't think marshallnoise is a troll, his stance is pretty firm, he just has a way of pissing you off apparently.

[E30 Wagen]

haven't read any of the articles or all the posts but I feel like diving right in here...

...our right to defend ourselves...

How come I never hear of any stories about some guy defending himself using a gun? I keep reading this "right to defend ourselves" again and again from the pro-gunners, but from what I've seen, guns are rarely used that way. Their means as a defensive weapon is an illusion. The possibility of encountering a gun-wielding homeowner isn't going to stop a robber from breaking into somebody's garage at 3:00am. Guns, if not used recreationally, are offensive weapons - doing everything we can to keep them out of the hands of bad guys seems like a good idea to me.

If you want to own a gun, I could care less if a background check reveals you frequently purchase and wear women's underwear. I don't think anybody will judge you. If you want to own a device that can take somebody's life, you better be proven to be 100% mentally stable enough to have one, and I don't care if the necessary background check which proves that seems to invade your privacy or diminish your rights.

[smooth]

You didn't quote anything for me,

Read this post again:

I'm going to assume this gem was directed at me, so I feel obliged to respond even if you have elevated yourself...[...]
I don't recall saying it was stupid to think crime can be prevented,

This isn't "Minority Report" you know.

Its pretty clear to me that you don't care about the 2nd Amendment and inalienable rights. This isn't about preventing school shootings for you, its about preventing gun ownership. Or, you are simply that stupid to think that you can PREVENT crime from occurring.

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showpost.php?p=4154296&postcount=166

[marshallnoise]

haven't read any of the articles or all the posts but I feel like diving right in here...


How come I never hear of any stories about some guy defending himself using a gun? I keep reading this "right to defend ourselves" again and again from the pro-gunners, but from what I've seen, guns are rarely used that way. Their means as a defensive weapon is an illusion. The possibility of encountering a gun-wielding homeowner isn't going to stop a robber from breaking into somebody's garage at 3:00am. Guns, if not used recreationally, are offensive weapons - doing everything we can to keep them out of the hands of bad guys seems like a good idea to me.

If you want to own a gun, I could care less if a background check reveals you frequently purchase and wear women's underwear. I don't think anybody will judge you. If you want to own a device that can take somebody's life, you better be proven to be 100% mentally stable enough to have one, and I don't care if the necessary background check which proves that seems to invade your privacy or diminish your rights.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun-366250-guns-ice.html?page=1

Enjoy some common sense reading. Short article on two pages. Gun use in self-defense is anecdotal by nature and so is gun use in crime.

[marshallnoise]

Read this post again:



http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...&postcount=166

Ahhh, so your ability to write in such a manner as to not cause confusion is at question here. Got it.

Thinly veiled sarcasm works in person, not over the internetz.

However, you are still stupid in thinking you can prevent crime.

So academic, stop the criminal mind from being a criminal mind via restricting access to guns.

Go!

[E30 Wagen]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/g...ce.html?page=1

Enjoy some common sense reading. Short article on two pages. Gun use in self-defense is anecdotal by nature and so is gun use in crime.

This article fails to refute my points. Give me more.

[smooth]

This article fails to refute my points. Give me more.

my advice is not to bother interacting with him. the mods let him run rampant around here for some reason.

[ParsedOut]

haven't read any of the articles or all the posts but I feel like diving right in here...


How come I never hear of any stories about some guy defending himself using a gun? I keep reading this "right to defend ourselves" again and again from the pro-gunners, but from what I've seen, guns are rarely used that way. Their means as a defensive weapon is an illusion. The possibility of encountering a gun-wielding homeowner isn't going to stop a robber from breaking into somebody's garage at 3:00am. Guns, if not used recreationally, are offensive weapons - doing everything we can to keep them out of the hands of bad guys seems like a good idea to me.

If you want to own a gun, I could care less if a background check reveals you frequently purchase and wear women's underwear. I don't think anybody will judge you. If you want to own a device that can take somebody's life, you better be proven to be 100% mentally stable enough to have one, and I don't care if the necessary background check which proves that seems to invade your privacy or diminish your rights.

So since you "rarely hear about" and feel that guns are only "offensive", that should dictate if I'm allowed to carry one to defend myself or my family from someone intent on doing us bodily harm? Just because you say so? I don't think so, unless you want to be my bodyguard 24/7 I'll take any advantage I can get to avoid death or harm to my family. You don't have to carry one, you don't have to agree with my choice to carry one, but you don't get to decide for me. Thank you.

[marshallnoise]

This article fails to refute my points. Give me more.

You ever have a really huge friend? Ever feel safer having him around?

[E30 Wagen]

So since you "rarely hear about" and feel that guns are only "offensive", that should dictate if I'm allowed to carry one to defend myself or my family from someone intent on doing us bodily harm? Just because you say so? I don't think so, unless you want to be my bodyguard 24/7 I'll take any advantage I can get to avoid death or harm to my family. You don't have to carry one, you don't have to agree with my choice to carry one, but you don't get to decide for me. Thank you.

Where the hell did I say that I want to dictate whether or not you are allowed to carry a gun? Read, for fuck's sake... I'm not saying that I want to abolish guns. I'm saying that they are mostly pointless for the sake of defense, which is the go-to argument for gun people who try to appeal to the emotions about family protection. That's not going to work on me. And no, I don't feel safer when I'm with a big friend. I can take care of myself just fine.

Getting all butthurt about a thorough background check potentially invading your precious privacy is what pisses me off. Gun are deadly weapons. They are most often used to carry out horrific crimes. People fucking die. I'm totally fine with whatever measures that are necessary to make sure they are kept out of the hands of psychopaths. I don't see what the big deal about the government making sure you're not a mental case is.

I personally would like to own a gun, but only for recreational use. I've got just a couple more things (sarcasm) I'd rather spend my money on, however.

[ParsedOut]

Where the hell did I say that I want to dictate whether or not you are allowed to carry a gun? Read, for fuck's sake... I'm not saying that I want to abolish guns. I'm saying that they are mostly pointless for the sake of defense, which is the go-to argument for gun people who try to appeal to the emotions about family protection. That's not going to work on me. And no, I don't feel safer when I'm with a big friend. I can take care of myself just fine.

Getting all butthurt about a thorough background check potentially invading your precious privacy is what pisses me off. Gun are deadly weapons. They are most often used to carry out horrific crimes. People fucking die. I'm totally fine with whatever measures that are necessary to make sure they are kept out of the hands of psychopaths. I don't see what the big deal about the government making sure you're not a mental case is.

I personally would like to own a gun, but only for recreational use. I've got just a couple more things (sarcasm) I'd rather spend my money on, however.

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.