Gabby Giffords on Senate gun vote: 'I'm furious'

[Craig234]

But how would that have stopped Lanza from getting a gun? All the proposed gun laws do is punish law abiding citizens from owning guns. It does nothing to stop criminals from obtaining gums criminally and does nothing to deter criminals from committing crimes with guns. All it does is punish legitimate gun owners and make white upper middle class people feel good because it 'deters their suburban malls from getting shot up.' The reality is the majority of gun crime does not happen in suburban white America, but when it does it scares them enough to let congress rape the 2nd amendment to keep them safe.

How many times do some people need it explained? Yes, gun control laws reduce the number of guns available to criminals.

Every gun starts out as 'legal'. Then whether because of background check loopholes, straw purchases, stealing the guns from legal owners, they fall into criminal hands.

Gun control that reduces the number of guns for 'legal' buyers means fewer available to fall into criminal hands.

Fewer to steal out of the homes of legal owners, for example. Not to mention extra charges for the criminals who do get them illegaly.

Reduced supply also increases the price to criminals.

 

[smackababy]

How many times do some people need it explained? Yes, gun control laws reduce the number of guns available to criminals.

Every gun starts out as 'legal'. Then whether because of background check loopholes, straw purchases, stealing the guns from legal owners, they fall into criminal hands.

Gun control that reduces the number of guns for 'legal' buyers means fewer available to fall into criminal hands.

Fewer to steal out of the homes of legal owners, for example. Not to mention extra charges for the criminals who do get them illegaly.

Reduced supply also increases the price to criminals.

The supply is already at such a high rate, reduction would do very little. There is an estimated 270 million guns in America. That is one gun for every man, woman, and child over the age of like 11. Sure, a reduction in supply over a long period of time would help limit the amount of guns to criminals, but that doesn't take into account illegal gun trafficking from other countries. Remember prohibition? The war on drugs? It didn't stop the supply.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How many times do some people need it explained? Yes, gun control laws reduce the number of guns available to criminals.

Every gun starts out as 'legal'. Then whether because of background check loopholes, straw purchases, stealing the guns from legal owners, they fall into criminal hands.

Gun control that reduces the number of guns for 'legal' buyers means fewer available to fall into criminal hands.

Fewer to steal out of the homes of legal owners, for example. Not to mention extra charges for the criminals who do get them illegaly.

Reduced supply also increases the price to criminals.

I'll have to address Craigs post to everyone else but him, since he's not very tolerant of people who have different opinions and AFAIK he's blocked a number of us.

He makes an interesting point. To deny people who would abuse something, all one has to do is prevent law abiding citizens from getting access. That pretty much shoots the concept of responsible freedom to hell. Just object to something on the grounds that another might abuse a thing to keep everyone from obtaining it. That can be applied to most things.

 

[jackstar7]

I'll have to address Craigs post to everyone else but him, since he's not very tolerant of people who have different opinions and AFAIK he's blocked a number of us.

He makes an interesting point. To deny people who would abuse something, all one has to do is prevent law abiding citizens from getting access. That pretty much shoots the concept of responsible freedom to hell. Just object to something on the grounds that another might abuse a thing to keep everyone from obtaining it. That can be applied to most things.

But if the idea here is to simply raise the threshold required to potential owners, like with universal background checks, does that actually inhibit law-abiding citizens from having access? Is there infringement there?

Give me the comparable hurdle to freedom of religion where everyone still gets free expression of religion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

But if the idea here is to simply raise the threshold required to potential owners, like with universal background checks, does that actually inhibit law-abiding citizens from having access? Is there infringement there?

Give me the comparable hurdle to freedom of religion where everyone still gets free expression of religion.

There's a few things. What, precisely, would be permitted under a background check? If we're looking at criminal activity that's one thing. Taking meds for simple depression? No. The devil is in the details. Further, I don't see that limiting ownership is just about background checks. In our wonderful state of NY it's being limited by making a great percentage of ordinary firearms illegal. I don't put it past some to approach it by that means. Much depends on how it's done. Based on my experiences here I haven't much trust.

I don't get the religion question. One can attend any church or other place of worship as often as they like. They can preach, they can attempt to talk to you, they can dress up like a duck if they like. If firearm ownership were treated the same the rest of the nation would be like Vermont in terms of restrictions.

 

[smackababy]

There's a few things. What, precisely, would be permitted under a background check? If we're looking at criminal activity that's one thing. Taking meds for simple depression? No. The devil is in the details. Further, I don't see that limiting ownership is just about background checks. In our wonderful state of NY it's being limited by making a great percentage of ordinary firearms illegal. I don't put it past some to approach it by that means. Much depends on how it's done. Based on my experiences here I haven't much trust.

I don't get the religion question. One can attend any church or other place of worship as often as they like. They can preach, they can attempt to talk to you, they can dress up like a duck if they like. If firearm ownership were treated the same the rest of the nation would be like Vermont in terms of restrictions.

IIRC New York already tried a handgun ban that was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court when they ruled the 2nd amendment covered self defense as a right. Okay it was not NY but DC. Look up District of Columbia vs Heller and the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. We have already struck down law attempting to ban anything outside of firearms, from what I can see. But that just goes for guns. California still has an active ban on anything that could be considered a ninja weapon.

 

[jackstar7]

There's a few things. What, precisely, would be permitted under a background check? If we're looking at criminal activity that's one thing. Taking meds for simple depression? No. The devil is in the details. Further, I don't see that limiting ownership is just about background checks. In our wonderful state of NY it's being limited by making a great percentage of ordinary firearms illegal. I don't put it past some to approach it by that means. Much depends on how it's done. Based on my experiences here I haven't much trust.

I don't get the religion question. One can attend any church or other place of worship as often as they like. They can preach, they can attempt to talk to you, they can dress up like a duck if they like. If firearm ownership were treated the same the rest of the nation would be like Vermont in terms of restrictions.

My point about religion was that you were saying that restrictions based on potential nefarious acts could take place is the slipperly slope. So I wanted a parallel to another of our freedoms where something like specific bans or checks impairs the freedom to be enjoyed.

How does banning specific guns limit your ability to arm yourself? Also, what threshold do you see as reasonable with regards to mental health and limitations of gun ownership. You think depression is okay, so where are you drawing the line? I'm not sure I want a new mother diagnosed with post-partum depression able to pass a check. Are you sure? I mean she has a right to protect herself and her baby... but is that well-regulated?

 

[smackababy]

My point about religion was that you were saying that restrictions based on potential nefarious acts could take place is the slipperly slope. So I wanted a parallel to another of our freedoms where something like specific bans or checks impairs the freedom to be enjoyed.

Is it? "Let's increase surveillance of Muslim communities." Ring any bells? The idea that we need to somehow monitor Muslims because there is a potential of extremism is actually happening. Gun control is doing the same. They are trying to limit the amount of guns that have the potential to end up in criminals hands by limiting the guns law abiding, responsible citizens can have. Not only is that ineffective, it is encroaching on the freedoms of people who have never committed a crime.

 

[jackstar7]

Is it? "Let's increase surveillance of Muslim communities." Ring any bells? The idea that we need to somehow monitor Muslims because there is a potential of extremism is actually happening. Gun control is doing the same. They are trying to limit the amount of guns that have the potential to end up in criminals hands by limiting the guns law abiding, responsible citizens can have. Not only is that ineffective, it is encroaching on the freedoms of people who have never committed a crime.

Shouldn't it matter how often that potential becomes reality? At what point does likelihood matter?

What if one of every two guns wound up in criminal hands? two of every three? Where is the line? Or do you posit there is none due to the 2nd?

 

[smackababy]

Shouldn't it matter how often that potential becomes reality? At what point does likelihood matter?

What if one of every two guns wound up in criminal hands? two of every three? Where is the line? Or do you posit there is none due to the 2nd?

If it was even close to the ratio of 1 of every 2 or 2 of every 3, we should probably take a loot. Except, it is probably closer to 1 in every 10,000. Chances are even higher than that. With an estimated 270 million guns, I'd say it is quite a low chance of a legally purchased gun ending up in the hands of a criminal.

Personally, I am against limits on the 2nd amendment, but I understand the need. There is no reason a person should privately own a nuclear warhead or and kind of ICBM. Even weapons such as jets and attack helicopters should be restricted to military use. Assault rifles and handguns? I see no point in restricting them. I think the fact that we restrict felons who have served their "debt to society" is even more laughable. They already get shit on by employers and now have even more rights restricted. They basically get the choice to work construction or return to a more lucrative life of crime. No wonder we have so many repeat offenders. But that is another debate altogether.

 

[jackstar7]

I offer this: "How Criminals Get Guns"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My point about religion was that you were saying that restrictions based on potential nefarious acts could take place is the slipperly slope. So I wanted a parallel to another of our freedoms where something like specific bans or checks impairs the freedom to be enjoyed.

How does banning specific guns limit your ability to arm yourself? Also, what threshold do you see as reasonable with regards to mental health and limitations of gun ownership. You think depression is okay, so where are you drawing the line? I'm not sure I want a new mother diagnosed with post-partum depression able to pass a check. Are you sure? I mean she has a right to protect herself and her baby... but is that well-regulated?

We've realized the slippery slope where I live. It's not a fallacy. I am also not satisfied with the "if we limit you to buying a single kind of weapon you can still arm yourself". You may not be advocating that, but like I said the slippery slope has been reached here. Common .22s used for plinking cans are now "wmds" as far as the state is concerned. That's insane. I'd like to make every person who approved this drive a used Yugo. After all they can still drive 😀

Regarding restrictions of ownership one can create "what if's" so that no system is workable. What about someone who just lost a loved one? A job? Had a bad day?

Someone with a history of violent mental illness? OK, I can go with that, but that diagnosis is not the business of the government, that should be done by two or more independent qualified providers. We are using HIPAA in NY as grounds for looking at peoples medical records without permission to seize weapons. That justification allows any "for the greater good" argument to do away with privacy. Are you willing to accept that?

 

[jackstar7]

We've realized the slippery slope where I live. It's not a fallacy. I am also not satisfied with the "if we limit you to buying a single kind of weapon you can still arm yourself". You may not be advocating that, but like I said the slippery slope has been reached here. Common .22s used for plinking cans are now "wmds" as far as the state is concerned. That's insane. I'd like to make every person who approved this drive a used Yugo. After all they can still drive 😀

Regarding restrictions of ownership one can create "what if's" so that no system is workable. What about someone who just lost a loved one? A job? Had a bad day?

Someone with a history of violent mental illness? OK, I can go with that, but that diagnosis is not the business of the government, that should be done by two or more independent qualified providers. We are using HIPAA in NY as grounds for looking at peoples medical records without permission to seize weapons. That justification allows any "for the greater good" argument to do away with privacy. Are you willing to accept that?

This is why I keep asking you questions. You're already at the bottom of slippery slope mountain. From your vantage what are the reasonable restrictions that can/should be in place? Any?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is why I keep asking you questions. You're already at the bottom of slippery slope mountain. From your vantage what are the reasonable restrictions that can/should be in place? Any?

I'd be for background checks which would exclude criminals with a violent past and those who have mental conditions such that two or more qualified health specialists deem to be of significant risk. Note that does not mean "possible" because it's possible that anyone can do most anything. In any legislation there must be guarantees of how this information will be used, and explicit language of what is not allowed. This needs to be bullet proof to make a pun, because we've seen weasel word legislation before. As far as the types of weapons? Pretty much what we have now.

Further, the emphasis has always been on the object, but there needs to be an understanding of why things happen. Why is NYC and Chicago with their strict gun laws more dangerous than Vermont which hasn't any? There's more to violence than access, and that needs to be understood and acted upon.

 

[jackstar7]

Further, the emphasis has always been on the object, but there needs to be an understanding of why things happen. Why is NYC and Chicago with their strict gun laws more dangerous than Vermont which hasn't any? There's more to violence than access, and that needs to be understood and acted upon.

Population density and scarcity of resources?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Population density and scarcity of resources?

I don't know what scarcity of resources means, but in VT guns are everywhere and it's not like you have to drive three hours to shoot someone. I'm not talking absolute number of residents, but rates.

 

[ivwshane]

I'd be for background checks which would exclude criminals with a violent past and those who have mental conditions such that two or more qualified health specialists deem to be of significant risk. Note that does not mean "possible" because it's possible that anyone can do most anything. In any legislation there must be guarantees of how this information will be used, and explicit language of what is not allowed. This needs to be bullet proof to make a pun, because we've seen weasel word legislation before. As far as the types of weapons? Pretty much what we have now.

Further, the emphasis has always been on the object, but there needs to be an understanding of why things happen. Why is NYC and Chicago with their strict gun laws more dangerous than Vermont which hasn't any? There's more to violence than access, and that needs to be understood and acted upon.

The background check bill did all of that but it wasnt good enough for you. Why? Because of an irrational fear that the government will take your guns. You say you are for reasonable restrictions/solutions but then you cop out of supporting them because you don't trust the government, that's unreasonable and irrational.

And it's the same BS reasoning every and anytime gun legislation comes up.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The background check bill did all of that but it wasnt good enough for you. Why? Because of an irrational fear that the government will take your guns. You say you are for reasonable restrictions/solutions but then you cop out of supporting them because you don't trust the government, that's unreasonable and irrational.

And it's the same BS reasoning every and anytime gun legislation comes up.

OK, show me the language of the legislation which only addressed checks, the means by which they would be done, the guarantees therein that prevent abuse, and precisely who and how "unsuitable" was determined. Was this legislation combined with other language? Inform me, not give me opinion pieces.

Also, find a post where I categorically reject background checks. We have a search feature, and you made the claim of "not good enough". Back that up.

 

[smackababy]

I offer this: "How Criminals Get Guns"

I saw a study from '97 that asked a few thousand felons who were incarcerated for gun crimes how they got their guns. It was like 35% friends or family, 20% gift, 15% drug dealer, 15% fence and the rest sprinkled through 'legitimate' means with less than 1% being gun show. Now, this was 15 years ago but gun violence is down from the late 90s anyway.

There is no scarcity of guns and short of rounding up every gun in the country, there won't be. No legislation will fix that. Gun laws have proven to not effect the majority of gun crime. Chicago vs Houston is a good example. Very similar sized cities with very different state gun laws. The annual rate of violent crime per 1000 residents is 9.78 in Houston and 10.33 for Chicago. Gun laws are ineffective.

Now, what do we do you might ask. We have to change the culture that idolizes violence. That is the only thing that will curb violent crime. It will still exist. In impoverished areas, it will be higher no matter what we do. The easy money of drugs and the violence it breeds will always lure people who either want to make quick money, are too lazy to work hard for $40k a year, or those with no skills or employability (such as convicted felons).

 

[jackstar7]

I don't know what scarcity of resources means, but in VT guns are everywhere and it's not like you have to drive three hours to shoot someone. I'm not talking absolute number of residents, but rates.

Scaricty of resources: poverty.

If your rates do not factor in population density then what good are they in this comparison? Do you imagine people don't behave differently based on how many other people are living on top of them?

 

[smackababy]

Scaricty of resources: poverty.

If your rates do not factor in population density then what good are they in this comparison? Do you imagine people don't behave differently based on how many other people are living on top of them?

I've posted the crime rates for Chicago and Houston. They are very similar in size. They have vastly different gun laws, yet the violent crime in Chicago is higher than Houston. The scarcity of resources (guns) to commit these crimes should, if laws are to be shown effective, be higher in Chicago. That is not the case.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Scaricty of resources: poverty.

If your rates do not factor in population density then what good are they in this comparison? Do you imagine people don't behave differently based on how many other people are living on top of them?

I can imagine a great many things Jack, but note the pointed out statistics between Houston and Chicago. Perhaps it's time to do something to address gun violence by going after causes, but that's not as "sexy" because that's harder. Get the CDC to check out the diseases of poverty and joblessness.

 

[jackstar7]

Population Density:

Chicago: 11,864.4/sq mi

Houston: 3,623/sq mi

 

[Craig234]

IIRC New York already tried a handgun ban that was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court when they ruled the 2nd amendment covered self defense as a right. Okay it was not NY but DC. Look up District of Columbia vs Heller and the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. We have already struck down law attempting to ban anything outside of firearms, from what I can see. But that just goes for guns. California still has an active ban on anything that could be considered a ninja weapon.

An added irony is that many martial arts weapons come specifically from getting around a government ban on weapons for peasants.

The peasants wanted to be able to defend themselves from the authorities who had swords, so turned things like nunchuks used in farming into weapons.

So, the peasants could use these weapons during a ban on weapons for them, but Californians can't.🙂 (There are exceptions for martial arts students, though).

Once the police pulled me over for running a stop sign, saw a weapon in my back set and asked to play with it, I said sure, they had fun and gave me a warning instead of a ticket.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Population Density:

Chicago: 11,864.4/sq mi

Houston: 3,623/sq mi

So population density is the reason that people are violent? What population density would you cut off gun ownership?