If Hillary wins, they better expand Gitmo

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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]

gotta love this article...



and then marshallnoise posts an article describing exactly what I was pointing out about the flow of guns moving from the suburbs of Illinois into Chicago.

Also of note in that article, straw buys would be reduced if the person standing at the counter buying the firearm for his "buddy" had to process the sale just like the dealer. Seems to be the entire point of the article

But the argument is that Chicago is fucked because of the suburbs. What then is the solution? Ban guns in the suburbs. Then when people go farther away, the solution is to ban them there too.

It is a fruitless exercise. Bad people get guns. The solution is to change what helps create bad people.

You reposted the article and claimed victory. Such odd behavior.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[smooth]

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

[ParsedOut]

gotta love this article...



and then marshallnoise posts an article describing exactly what I was pointing out about the flow of guns moving from the suburbs of Illinois into Chicago.

Also of note in that article, straw buys would be reduced if the person standing at the counter buying the firearm for his "buddy" had to process the sale just like the dealer. Seems to be the entire point of the article

While we're taking quotes from other threads...

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

Wait, so you say it's stupid to try and think about preventing crime? What purpose would these background checks serve then? Hmm...

[ParsedOut]

not sure why you think talking about one issue in a thread means people are not talking about other issues at the same time elsewhere. it's not like someone has to choose between regulating firearms and funding education

Didn't say I was the only one talking about it, doesn't change the fact that we should take the effort and money involved in trying to pass regulations that would have little impact on the overall violent crime statistic and put them to use in other more sociologically constructive ways. If we continue to try and regulate the tool...maybe gun crime goes down, yay we win high fives all around! Uh oh, knives, baseball bats and fists are going up considerably (see England and Australia)...ohhh, now we need to pass laws on knives! Let's just keep pouring water from one bucket to another and asking ourselves why nothing works.

[smooth]

Yeah, but those issues are sooooo hard to address but passing a law that will likely make little impact while potentially exposing our right to defend ourselves is really easy.

We have so many govt "programs" like the one Michelle Obama heads to keep kids from getting fat, or DARE to keep kids off of drugs.
Why don't we have educational programs for adults and/or new parents that show them how neglect and emotional disregard can lead to severe sociological issues, many of which can and will turn violent.
Or how about we put all of these millions of dollars being campaigned towards gun control towards education and breaking the cycle of inner city violence among youth?
Or all the money being spent on the "war on drugs", and address the real issues that cause people to use them.
We spend all this time and money fighting endless battles instead of really digging in and going to the source.

ask your local Republican representative if they do or do not support Head Start and federal education funding instead of relying on local tax dollars for public K-12 schooling

not sure why you think talking about one issue in a thread means people are not talking about other issues at the same time elsewhere. it's not like someone has to choose between regulating firearms and funding education

[smooth]

All the background checks in the world still won't stop robbery. Nor will it stop straw-buyers. http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/1...l#.U6M4f3ZN2ko

gotta love this article...

ask him to justify Chicago...

His excuse for Chicago is that you can still go into the burbs and get guns and their suburban freedom is undermining the liberal utopia of a gunless society.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

and then marshallnoise posts an article describing exactly what I was pointing out about the flow of guns moving from the suburbs of Illinois into Chicago.

Also of note in that article, straw buys would be reduced if the person standing at the counter buying the firearm for his "buddy" had to process the sale just like the dealer. Seems to be the entire point of the article

[marshallnoise]

Yeah, but those issues are sooooo hard to address but passing a law that will likely make little impact while potentially exposing our right to defend ourselves is really easy.

We have so many govt "programs" like the one Michelle Obama heads to keep kids from getting fat, or DARE to keep kids off of drugs.
Why don't we have educational programs for adults and/or new parents that show them how neglect and emotional disregard can lead to severe sociological issues, many of which can and will turn violent.
Or how about we put all of these millions of dollars being campaigned towards gun control towards education and breaking the cycle of inner city violence among youth?
Or all the money being spent on the "war on drugs", and address the real issues that cause people to use them.
We spend all this time and money fighting endless battles instead of really digging in and going to the source.

And that's just it. It is a moral issue and unfortunately all things moral are demonized and taboo. I am not saying religious, but moral. Correct, appropriate, tasteful and most of all, respecting the rights of the individual who is responsible for all things he/she interacts with.

Our country was founded on the idea that God gave man rights. Remove God from it and it looks like this: Our country was founded on the idea that no other man can give a man rights. Insert the Flying Spaghetti Monster: Our country was founded on the idea that the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave man rights. No contradiction no matter what pronoun, object or anything other than man you replace God with.

The advantage of believing in something other than nothingness is that you should be accountable to that thing for what you do to other men who were given the same rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Only a change of our hearts towards fellow man can make bad things stop happening. Guns for protection would not be necessary if everyone respected each other. Simple as that.