The house passes gun control bills

[Kwatt]

Because I have decent reading comprehension and logic skills? Haha.

The discussion is whether it is proper to place burdens on law abiding citizens in order to prevent unlawful behavior. The laws being compared are irrelevant.

This is not a difficult concept to understand.

I understand the concept. That is why we have laws against misusing firearms.

Please use your

decent reading comprehension and logic skills

to grasp the concept between "use of" and ownership of".


I have read enough of your post to know you can. I do not understand your reluctance or refusal to do so.


.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand the concept. That is why we have laws against misusing firearms.

Please use your to grasp the concept between "use of" and ownership of".

I have read enough of your post to know you can. I do not understand your reluctance or refusal to do so.

.

I already told you the point you are trying to make is irrelevant.

 

[Kwatt]

I do not think that the difference between engaging in act that harms others and owning something that may be used at some nebulous point in the future to harm others is irrelevant.

Although I will concede that it may be inconvenient...

.

 

[fskimospy]

I do not think that the difference between engaging in act that harms others and owning something that may be used at some nebulous point in the future to harm others is irrelevant.

Although I will concede that it may be inconvenient...

.

It is entirely irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Trump will veto. Glad we have someone in office to protect the constitution.

 

[Veliko]

I'm not trying to nitpick, but there is no private sale loophole. It's not a flaw in the law, but the way the law was purposely written. It was intended to exempt the occasional private sale from the background check requirement because it was felt that requiring one would put an unfair burden on the individual to involve an FFL dealer in the sale and pay those associated fees.

So, it wasn't a mistake. It was a carefully worked out compromise between pro and anti-gun folks that helped get the background check law passed. And it's very far from a universal belief that it needs to be done away with. Not all of us believe we need the government to hold our hands, or that the occasional sale by a private individual to another private individual is a problem. Innocent until found guilty via due process, remember? It's an essential, fundamental concept vital to a free society.

And it happens be be a perfect example of that darn slippery slope anti-gunners think we are silly for worrying about. The gun owners of America are constantly lied to that if we just agree to the next step of "reasonable" gun control that it will solve the problem of gun violence and we'll be left alone. Just one more law. We all know that's a lie because attacking the low hanging fruit of legal gun owners in an attempt for a magic bullet fix (pun totally intended) at the expense of our constitutional rights never works.

I, again, point out that the MOTIVATION of those who commit violent gun crimes is the real problem we need to solve. We've got plenty of laws already on the books and a perfectly fine background check system in place, if we would just dedicated sufficient resources to implement them correctly.

At least that's how I see it.

Your repeated attempts to portray gun owners as the biggest victims in all this is really odd.

If you were actually, genuinely interested in solving the problem you would start with the obvious question of "why does no other modern, developed, democratic country have the same issues with violent gun crime?"

 

[ivwshane]

Trump will veto. Glad we have someone in office to protect the constitution.

You aren't talking about the guy violating the emoluments clause are you? I mean there is no way you are talking about the guy who says the press is the enemy of the people!? Right?!

If you are then you might want to get another constitution to refer to, I think yours is missing a few pages.

 

[Clump]

What you're saying would hold true for basically every criminal law ever. Laws against drunk driving are broken every day so why bother inconveniencing law abiding people with DUI checkpoints and the like?

The deterrent effect of criminal law is well established and there's no reason to believe it magically doesn't apply to guns. Guns aren't special.

I'll take this as an unwillingness or inability to answer the question.

I'll try again:
Will this restriction of the law abiding have any effect on the not law abiding?

 

[ivwshane]

I'll take this as an unwillingness or inability to answer the question.

I'll try again:
Will this restriction of the law abiding have any effect on the not law abiding?

Why wouldn't it? You are implying that law abiding citizens don't break the law. That's laughable as I would guess that most people were law abiding citizens before they broke a law. One isn't born a criminal, they become one. On the same token not all criminals seek to break the law before committing a crime.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll take this as an unwillingness or inability to answer the question.

I'll try again:
Will this restriction of the law abiding have any effect on the not law abiding?

I've answered you several times already but you keep ignoring it. Empirical research on deterrence effects of criminal laws indicates that the answer is yes.

 

[Clump]

OK, I can accept that as your answer. Thanks.

I disagree, but that's OK.

 

[Paladin3]

Your repeated attempts to portray gun owners as the biggest victims in all this is really odd.

If you were actually, genuinely interested in solving the problem you would start with the obvious question of "why does no other modern, developed, democratic country have the same issues with violent gun crime?"

Odd? That's all you've got? I post 4+ paragraphs and you don't address a single argument I made.

How about this, I'll answer your question right after you answer mine: If a complete gun ban was past today, how would you go about rounding up all those civilian owned guns without starting a civil war?

You need to answer that question before you go implying we're just too stupid or uncaring to ban guns. Guns are here and you have to deal with them, regardless of your utopian dreams of a world without them.

 

[ivwshane]

Odd? That's all you've got? I post 4+ paragraphs and you don't address a single argument I made.

How about this, I'll answer your question right after you answer mine: If a complete gun ban was past today, how would you go about rounding up all those civilian owned guns without starting a civil war?

You need to answer that question before you go implying we're just too stupid or uncaring to ban guns. Guns are here and you have to deal with them, regardless of your utopian dreams of a world without them.

I always get a kick out of this argument when gun nutters make it:

YOU CAN'T TAKE OUR GUNS OR WE WILL START KILLING AMERICANS!!!


Sounds like an even bigger reason to ban guns.

 

[Veliko]

Odd? That's all you've got? I post 4+ paragraphs and you don't address a single argument I made.

How about this, I'll answer your question right after you answer mine: If a complete gun ban was past today, how would you go about rounding up all those civilian owned guns without starting a civil war?

You need to answer that question before you go implying we're just too stupid or uncaring to ban guns. Guns are here and you have to deal with them, regardless of your utopian dreams of a world without them.

My answer would be something like "By not expecting every gun to vanish inside of a week."

This response pretty much proves that you aren't interested in reducing gun crime.

Hence me calling you odd.

 

[Paladin3]

My answer would be something like "By not expecting every gun to vanish inside of a week."

This response pretty much proves that you aren't interested in reducing gun crime.

Hence me calling you odd.

It means that I live in the real world and operate according to the way things are.

And it means I will not surrender my 2A rights when I've done nothing illegal to lose them. I won't voluntarily disarm so you can feel good when I'm not the problem. And doubly so because you can do nothing to disarm those who are.

But I understand you are coming from a position where all guns are problems and their law-abiding owners even more so. Where folks are too stupid to take care of themselves and need government to tell them which tools are too dangerous to own. A world where a person motivated to kill isn't a problem, but the tool (a tool that 99.92%+ of the time is never used to hurt anyone) is. A world where constitutional rights you don't personally enjoy are deemed expendable, and those who refuse to surrender them probably even more so.

 

[Paladin3]

I always get a kick out of this argument when gun nutters make it:

YOU CAN'T TAKE OUR GUNS OR WE WILL START KILLING AMERICANS!!!


Sounds like an even bigger reason to ban guns.

Again, you are ignoring my actual question and responding with a BS talking point. I would give up my guns if it came to that, but a lot of folks would refuse to do so. Anyone who proposes an eventual ban, either today or in small steps over time, has to accept and deal with this fact.

You do understand that in rather barbaric but real terms, an armed individual has a certain level of power an unarmed individual does not. It would take armed individuals to forcibly disarm the populace, and historically that's always been bad for the populace.

Furthermore, at army or law enforcement element you would be counting on to enforce any ban would understand it's unconstitutional and be on the side of the civilian gun owners. You can think me unhinged for pointing out these facts, but they are facts none the less.

And those sufficiently MOTIVATED to kill would continue to do so. Guns would be illegally manufactured and/or smuggled in just like illegal drugs currently are. And the only unarmed folks would be those of us who aren't the problem. But don't let that thing called a constitution stop you.

 

[Veliko]

It means that I live in the real world and operate according to the way things are.

And it means I will not surrender my 2A rights when I've done nothing illegal to lose them. I won't voluntarily disarm so you can feel good when I'm not the problem. And doubly so because you can do nothing to disarm those who are.

But I understand you are coming from a position where all guns are problems and their law-abiding owners even more so. Where folks are too stupid to take care of themselves and need government to tell them which tools are too dangerous to own. A world where a person motivated to kill isn't a problem, but the tool (a tool that 99.92%+ of the time is never used to hurt anyone) is. A world where constitutional rights you don't personally enjoy are deemed expendable, and those who refuse to surrender them probably even more so.

You're all over the place.

The world I live in is the one where the US is the only developed nation that has this problem with gun crime.

Now the rational and logical thing to do here would be to take a look at what the difference(s) are between the US and everywhere else... yet for some reason, the mere suggestion of doing that sends you into a rambling paranoid rage because you think everyone is calling you stupid and trying to oppress you.

Guns are simply your favourite hobby, but you're too embarrassed to admit it. Hence you retreating behind the constitution and trying to portray yourself as the victim.

 

[Paladin3]

You're all over the place.

The world I live in is the one where the US is the only developed nation that has this problem with gun crime.

Now the rational and logical thing to do here would be to take a look at what the difference(s) are between the US and everywhere else... yet for some reason, the mere suggestion of doing that sends you into a rambling paranoid rage because you think everyone is calling you stupid and trying to oppress you.

Guns are simply your favourite hobby, but you're too embarrassed to admit it. Hence you retreating behind the constitution and trying to portray yourself as the victim.

Of course I love guns and shooting them is one of my favorite hobbies. Why the hell would I ever be embarrassed to admit it??? I and a heck of a lot of people just like me believe shooting for fun, target or competitive shooting, reenacting, to put meat in the freezer or for good old self-defense are wonderful pastimes and traditions.

We don't live in your world where guns are bad and everyone who has one needs it taken away from them. We are lucky enough to live in a country where our right to have a gun is constitutionally protected unless we do something illegal to lose that right. And you want to change that.

I'm no victim and I would never allow myself to be. I vote, I carry, I hunt, I shoot for fun, I obey the law and I won't be told by you or anyone else that I'm doing something wrong. I'm not paranoid or enraged, I'm simply telling you "NO" when it comes to new gun control legislation that won't do a damn thing to fix the real problem.

And I'm a retired newspaper photojournalist from Los Angeles. I guess I spent my career retreating behind the First Amendment? You talk about constitutional rights like they are a bad thing. Give them away at your own peril, I say.

 

[Veliko]

Of course I love guns and shooting them is one of my favorite hobbies. Why the hell would I ever be embarrassed to admit it??? I and a heck of a lot of people just like me believe shooting for fun, target or competitive shooting, reenacting, to put meat in the freezer or for good old self-defense are wonderful pastimes and traditions.

We don't live in your world where guns are bad and everyone who has one needs it taken away from them. We are lucky enough to live in a country where our right to have a gun is constitutionally protected unless we do something illegal to lose that right. And you want to change that.

I'm no victim and I would never allow myself to be. I vote, I carry, I hunt, I shoot for fun, I obey the law and I won't be told by you or anyone else that I'm doing something wrong. I'm not paranoid or enraged, I'm simply telling you "NO" when it comes to new gun control legislation that won't do a damn thing to fix the real problem.

And I'm a retired newspaper photojournalist from Los Angeles. I guess I spent my career retreating behind the First Amendment? You talk about constitutional rights like they are a bad thing. Give them away at your own peril, I say.

Again, you're all over the place.

The embarrassment is there because you know that saying something truthful like "please don't take away my favourite hobby" or "I don't want to wait three days for my new killing utensil" after yet another school shooting would make you sound like a silly little child. Therefore you resort to hiding behind noble-sounding language like "Don't take away my hard won constitutional rights! Stop trying to oppress me!"

With regards to guns being bad, let's start with a simple approach:

Which developed nations have a big problem with gun violence?
Answer - the US

Which developed nations have guns freely available?
Answer - the US

Therefore it is logical to conclude that guns are bad for the population.

 

[Clump]

Again, you're all over the place.

The embarrassment is there because you know that saying something truthful like "please don't take away my favourite hobby" or "I don't want to wait three days for my new killing utensil" after yet another school shooting would make you sound like a silly little child. Therefore you resort to hiding behind noble-sounding language like "Don't take away my hard won constitutional rights! Stop trying to oppress me!"

With regards to guns being bad, let's start with a simple approach:

Which developed nations have a big problem with gun violence?
Answer - the US

Which developed nations have guns freely available?
Answer - the US

Therefore it is logical to conclude that guns are bad for the population.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

The US has the highest level of deaths via heroin overdoses, therefore heroin should be illegal...Oops! Never Mind!

 

[Veliko]

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

The US has the highest level of deaths via heroin overdoses, therefore heroin should be illegal...Oops! Never Mind!

What point do you think you're making here, bearing in mind the obvious difference between a self-inflicted accidental death and the intentional death of another person?

 

[Clump]

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

I Googled it for you - http://www.fallacyfiles.org/cumhocfa.html

The 2 points are related, but there is some level of logical thinking requiired.

 

[Veliko]

I asked what point you think you're making, yet all you've done is repeat what you said before.

It doesn't sound like you really have one.

 

[cmcartman]

I always get a kick out of this argument when gun nutters make it:

YOU CAN'T TAKE OUR GUNS OR WE WILL START KILLING AMERICANS!!!


Sounds like an even bigger reason to ban guns.

That's actually not what he said. You make it sound as if he'd go out randomly killing civilians. What would you do when someone comes to your home and tells you they're coming in to take items you own? I think most people would consider it legal to use whatever force is necessary to stop them. I don't see a whole lot of difference in them coming in to take items that were a constitutional right when they were purchased and now arbitrarily illegal. You act like a person would have to be crazy to think like that. A person would have to be crazy to think differently than that.

I find it humorous of all this talk of we're not coming to take your guns, we just want common sense laws. When those don't change things just a few more common sense laws. You both seem perfectly fine with removing gun ownership completely and wonder why those who do own them become alarmed.

Make no mistake, it would cause a civil war. And it wouldn't be the military going after just the civilians. I work in an industry that heavily recruits veterans and this discussion has come up many times. I would argue from my experience that Paladin3 is correct and the vast majority of them would be on the other side.

 

[Paratus]

@cmcartman & @Clump

Quick questions. What if the common sense gun laws had no impact on “good gun owners”?

Why do good gun owners treat every gun as if it was loaded?