Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: 2016: Obama's America « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19490
Online
« #90 : April 23, 2013, 04:11:52 PM »

"If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.

Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not. “Too soon,” howl supporters of loose gun laws. But as others have observed, talking about how to stop mass shootings in the aftermath of a string of mass shootings isn’t “too soon.” It’s much too late."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

Click the link.  The facts are complicated, meaning they cut both ways, but if you accept all of the numbered items as facts (and how/why could you selectively choose?) look at 8 and 9.

Then, ask yourself why laws have been written in this country FORBIDING the release of data on gun violence? Or, why would congress just make permamnent a rider to gun laws that says this:

"A final measure would require the bureau to attach a disclaimer to data about guns to indicate that it “cannot be used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-related crimes.”


C'mon now . . Why would Congress FORBID the ATF from using gun data to draw broad conclusions about crime? LMAO.   When you have to move to squelch data, to essentially burn the books . . .  well, one can draw his/her own conlusions about what the books would show if they were not burned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/us/politics/gop-senators-add-gun-protections-to-financing-bill.html?_r=0

« : April 23, 2013, 04:14:09 PM VinBucFan »


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31576
Offline
« #91 : April 23, 2013, 04:14:50 PM »

Again -  I am more asking what the anticipated benefit is.  If it is to make it more 'difficult' compared to something that has no difficulty, and will basically affect only honest folks then we are chasing out proverbial tales.  If there is something beneficial I am curious as to what it is.

Because it is a false assertion that only honest folk will incur more difficulty. That implies that criminals are not simply currently shopping at the same places that "honest folk" are shopping at to buy their guns. If I am a gang member with a criminal background, and currently go to the same place as "honest folk" to acquire my weapons, and then find out that they are now doing background checks, I now have to find a new, less easy way in which to acquire my weapons. Therefor, your assertion that only "honest folks" will be burdened by the law is patently false.

If CBW and I agree, then it must be true.

lolz


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46187
Offline
« #92 : April 23, 2013, 05:54:11 PM »

Again -  I am more asking what the anticipated benefit is.  If it is to make it more 'difficult' compared to something that has no difficulty, and will basically affect only honest folks then we are chasing out proverbial tales.  If there is something beneficial I am curious as to what it is.

Because it is a false assertion that only honest folk will incur more difficulty. That implies that criminals are not simply currently shopping at the same places that "honest folk" are shopping at to buy their guns. If I am a gang member with a criminal background, and currently go to the same place as "honest folk" to acquire my weapons, and then find out that they are now doing background checks, I now have to find a new, less easy way in which to acquire my weapons. Therefor, your assertion that only "honest folks" will be burdened by the law is patently false.

You can make the arbitrary argument that it's still easy to acquire things on the black market, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't a single criminal out there that would argue that it's just as easy to acquire firearms on the black market as it is on the white market. Black market arms dealers tend to try and keep low profiles, whereas gun shows typically advertise on TV, radio, and in the Sunday paper.
This is why attempting to converse with you is such a pain in the ass CBW.  The question - will this make it difficult for the "bad guys" to get weapons.  If not, the idea is pointless - bc the "good guys" who are not the issue will be carrying the burden of both time and money for the new legislation.  So - will this law make it more difficult or not.  I have read and discussed this with friends who do own guns and munitions - they don't think it will impact the 'bad guys' but it will make the unknowing feel better in spite of the lack of impact making it perfect for legislators who wish to be seeing as doing something.

So - this is the last time I will ask the question to either you or Vince. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46187
Offline
« #93 : April 23, 2013, 05:58:24 PM »

Again -  I am more asking what the anticipated benefit is.  If it is to make it more 'difficult' compared to something that has no difficulty, and will basically affect only honest folks then we are chasing out proverbial tales.  If there is something beneficial I am curious as to what it is.

Because it is a false assertion that only honest folk will incur more difficulty. That implies that criminals are not simply currently shopping at the same places that "honest folk" are shopping at to buy their guns. If I am a gang member with a criminal background, and currently go to the same place as "honest folk" to acquire my weapons, and then find out that they are now doing background checks, I now have to find a new, less easy way in which to acquire my weapons. Therefor, your assertion that only "honest folks" will be burdened by the law is patently false.

If CBW and I agree, then it must be true.

lolz
or the end of times...

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
« #94 : April 23, 2013, 06:17:51 PM »

And this is where threads get derailed.  Vin can't "win" an argument and lord forbid there be a discussion so he puts words in someone's mouth and pretends they said something they didn't.  Worst poster on the board hands down other than the comedic value.  Carry on.

actually, the "worst poster" is someone who gets so angry at another theat they stalk him off the boards . ..  just saying . .   so you carry on . . .. just as I have, learned a few things too

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I was stalked by my Pizza guy the other day.  He knew my name and where I lived, yet I knew nothing of him.  I've contacted the authorities and an investigation is pending.

lol at the liar

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19490
Online
« #95 : April 24, 2013, 12:23:47 AM »

So - will this law make it more difficult or not. 

So - this is the last time I will ask the question to either you or Vince.

of course. even ardent gun advocates agree (today no barrier, tomorrow a barrier), they just argue - much as you can read in this thread -- that its not foolproof


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #96 : April 25, 2013, 12:13:31 AM »

Again -  I am more asking what the anticipated benefit is.  If it is to make it more 'difficult' compared to something that has no difficulty, and will basically affect only honest folks then we are chasing out proverbial tales.  If there is something beneficial I am curious as to what it is.

Because it is a false assertion that only honest folk will incur more difficulty. That implies that criminals are not simply currently shopping at the same places that "honest folk" are shopping at to buy their guns. If I am a gang member with a criminal background, and currently go to the same place as "honest folk" to acquire my weapons, and then find out that they are now doing background checks, I now have to find a new, less easy way in which to acquire my weapons. Therefor, your assertion that only "honest folks" will be burdened by the law is patently false.

You can make the arbitrary argument that it's still easy to acquire things on the black market, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't a single criminal out there that would argue that it's just as easy to acquire firearms on the black market as it is on the white market. Black market arms dealers tend to try and keep low profiles, whereas gun shows typically advertise on TV, radio, and in the Sunday paper.
This is why attempting to converse with you is such a pain in the ass CBW.  The question - will this make it difficult for the "bad guys" to get weapons. 

We've answered this question. You just have chosen to ignore it. There is no scenario in which it makes it more difficult for the "honest folks" to get weapons that doesn't also inherently make it more difficult for the "bad guys" to get weapons.

If both good guys and bad guys buy weapons at gun shows, extending background checks creates difficulty for all purchasers, not just "good guy" purchasers. The biggest difference, however, is that the good guys will continue to be able to purchase weapons there, and the bad guys will not. To make the argument that cutting off an easily accessible venue to criminal purchasers doesn't create any additional hardship on criminal purchasers is asinine.


olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
« #97 : April 25, 2013, 07:41:29 AM »

You're assuming it will be "less easy" for the gang member with a criminal background to get a gun.  It appears to me that dbuc's assertion is that it will not be "less easy" just different (i.e. the black market or get someone without a criminal background to buy for him).  Personally, I didn't think that making it "less easy" was the goal, I thought it was prevention.   Is Sandy Hook or Aurora like tragedies prevented by expanded background checks?  I just don't believe that they would be.

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46187
Offline
« #98 : April 25, 2013, 08:39:56 AM »

And that is the point Olaf - if this investment does little more than cause the 'bad guys' to change marketplace it is hard to justify.  If this process makes it hard for the 'bad guys' to get access to weapons than it is easy to justify. 

What I have read gives the descriptions and dissatisfaction with the law seemingly falling short of making it hard for the 'bad guys'.  A fair reading would be the proposed law would be an annoyance to the 'bad guys'.  Laws for the sake of saying 'we passed something' are costly and unimpressive, though a hallmark for the legislative branch of the government as of late. 

« : April 25, 2013, 08:48:52 AM dbucfan »

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19490
Online
« #99 : April 25, 2013, 11:50:34 PM »

And that is the point Olaf - if this investment does little more than cause the 'bad guys' to change marketplace it is hard to justify

in bold -- just like the phrase that followed your "and" before  :)

 but even with that, "justify" against what? Justify saving a life? what is the justification for allowing ANYONE - felon, child etc. -- to buy ANY gun, no questions asked?  That's the thing, you have it backwards. Other than making money, what is the justification for allowing anyone to buy a gun . . . anyone at all?


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46187
Offline
« #100 : April 25, 2013, 11:57:29 PM »

It doesn't affect the ability of 'bad guys' to get weapons.  It only makes it more difficult for the 'good guys'.  The point is simple.  If it doesn't impact the bad guys it is inconvenience for the good guys.  That isn't a benefit.  And the justify part is pretty straight forward.  If the law doesn't impact the problem - the law is useless - and in this case will be costly, i.e. it will cost the tax payers in the country money and not provide a benefit. 

I am not against this registration as a provision within a statute that impacts bad guys getting weapons.  I am against Congress selling this as some sort of benefit - which it is not insofar as I can see.  And that is from a guy who doesn't own guns. So perhaps less drama and a look at what Congress (and the President) are trying to sell is in order. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #101 : April 26, 2013, 12:04:03 AM »

You're assuming it will be "less easy" for the gang member with a criminal background to get a gun.  It appears to me that dbuc's assertion is that it will not be "less easy" just different (i.e. the black market or get someone without a criminal background to buy for him). 

All dbuc is doing is assuming as well. He is assuming that it won't be less easy. I happen to think it's an asinine assumption, because there is nothing more easy than walking into a legally sanctioned gun show and exchanging cash for weapons, no questions asked. The notion that buying anything on the black market is easier than that is completely ridiculous.

BTW, how does dbuc think black market guns find their way to the black market? Through the gun crime fairy? About 80% of the weapons used to commit gun crimes have their origins traced back to gun show purchases. 90% of the guns used by the Mexcan drug cartels are purchased at gun shows or from American gun shops. Black market arms dealers acquire most of their merchandise from gun shows, because it's the easiest way to acquire lots of guns without having to answer any questions or incur any risk. The only way that closing this loophole won't have an affect on gun crime is if criminals figure out a way to start manufacturing guns in their basements.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19490
Online
« #102 : April 26, 2013, 12:10:03 AM »

It doesn't affect the ability of 'bad guys' to get weapons.  It only makes it more difficult for the 'good guys'. The point is simple.  If it doesn't impact the bad guys it is inconvenience for the good guys.  That isn't a benefit.  And the justify part is pretty straight forward.  If the law doesn't impact the problem - the law is useless - and in this case will be costly, i.e. it will cost the tax payers in the country money and not provide a benefit. 

I am not against this registration as a provision within a statute that impacts bad guys getting weapons.  I am against Congress selling this as some sort of benefit - which it is not insofar as I can see.  And that is from a guy who doesn't own guns. So perhaps less drama and a look at what Congress (and the President) are trying to sell is in order.

The parts in bold are your opinion, against the weight of facts and, frankly, logic. How would a restriction on all gun purchases only impact one segment of the purchasers? Both CBW and I -- certainly not politically aligned people -- have point out several times the flaw in that leap, it's basically the same logically flawed argument that many gun advocates make; namely, if a gun restriction is not a PERFECT solution it has no merit.  That flawed logic is not applied to any other public health issue in this country, but so be it.  Can a motivated criminal still find a gun if there is 100 background check?  Sure, just like a motivated 12 year old could buy liquor and drive a car . . . doesn't mean we don't try to prevent it.

And who cares about the SELLING . .  the focus should be on the TRUTH . .  and the truth is the less accessible guns are the less gun violence.  It's not really any more complicated than that. But, if we really want to simplify it, just focus on a simple question . .  here it is . . . for the second time . . . what's the JUSTIFICATION for allowing anyone to buy/own/use a gun, no questions asked, when you need, as an example, a license and insurance and  a passing grade on a test to drive a car . .  in a society where cars are ESSENTIAL to life, no less? Guns are made for killing humans, so what is the justification for less restriction on guns than cars?


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46187
Offline
« #103 : April 26, 2013, 12:52:55 AM »

Spare me the Red font, it is only slightly sillier than stating this registration would prevent 'bad guys' from obtaining weapons. 

The " bad folks" this purports to prevent from getting guns are the type that led to the murder of school kids. It will require registration of a weapons and a check on the one applying for the sale.  Which of the mass murderers would this have affected?  Well none. 

So rather than addressing the issue that you to this firestorm, the issue is expanded to all guns - regardless of the type or purpose for the weapon.  And you want to me to answer the question of allowing anyone to buy/own/use a gun.... It is authorized and provided for within the Constitution.  It is a right.  And that is the truth.  A right to date I have chosen not to exercise but a right none the less.  I will add a right I am free to use, and will register for - because it is the law for the place I would purchase the weapon from - in the event I choose to.  But that will be choice. 

As for you example of the car, the car is purchased by the individual, it is registered and used for public road use.  (those used on private property have none of those restrictions iirc) It isn't provided for by the Constitution as a right.  It requires a licensed driver on public roads, it is within the purview of State and Federal regulation as to use on public roads and ownership.  And yes if one removed guns from our society gun crimes would fall.  However, the Constitution precludes such an action, and as has been demonstrated doesn't effectively reduce violent crimes (see the same point Spartan provided)

A law was passed years ago removing automatic weapons from access for those who do not pass scrutiny of the FBI, very limited legal access.  But we know and see automatic weapons used in crimes, both here and abroad.  You will remember the discussions on automatic weapons v semi-automatics... and they still show up at crime scenes.  Somehow the bad folks you now seek to include in your expanded position (beyond those involved in the events such as the elementary school, the congresswoman, the movie theater, the prior school event at Columbine...) are any that use guns.  This won't get you there any more than the efforts to eliminate automatic weapons. 

If one is going to take on those that sell/buy/use/own weapons have at it, but if all Congress intends to do is blow smoke and create another costly registration process that cost money and produces no benefit, don't kid yourself, or me.

And those automatic weapons CBWx2 - are illegal for sale by anyone who isn't licensed and authorized by the FBI in the United States of America, and still reach buyers world wide - amazing that gun fairy is...
« : April 26, 2013, 12:55:59 AM dbucfan »

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
« #104 : April 26, 2013, 08:46:20 AM »

clap, clap, clap
  Page: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: 2016: Obama's America « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools