Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: DOJ: Gun violence down, semi-automatics a minor issue « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 11 12 13 14

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#180 : June 27, 2013, 03:19:36 PM

We should make some laws for criminals to ignore that place a burden on those who weren't breaking any laws to begin with. Maybe that would solve the problem?

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#181 : June 27, 2013, 04:18:46 PM

What's wrong with a gun law being effective?
The same thing that is wrong with Unicorns and flying pigs and magic fairy dust.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A Nashville gang member told NewsChannel 5 Investigates that he often went to local gun shows to buy guns.

Jonathan Gutierrez said he and other gang members went to gun shows with large amounts of cash and had no problem buying guns despite having a criminal record.

###
Licensed dealers must run background checks, but private sales at gun shows require no background check.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, "What if you had to go through a background check?"

Gutierrez responded, "I guess we wouldn't be buying none."
[/b][/size][/color]


So repeatedly (ad nauseam ) the same poorly written and clearly biased report is your response. An agenda driven interview with one lone single gang-banger is the answer to the question "are any gun laws truly effective?

Sorry but I have to completely disregard an interview with a dubious source, who is clearly being led in the questioning, if not coached.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19561
Online
#182 : June 27, 2013, 04:41:02 PM

What's wrong with a gun law being effective?
The same thing that is wrong with Unicorns and flying pigs and magic fairy dust.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A Nashville gang member told NewsChannel 5 Investigates that he often went to local gun shows to buy guns.

Jonathan Gutierrez said he and other gang members went to gun shows with large amounts of cash and had no problem buying guns despite having a criminal record.

###
Licensed dealers must run background checks, but private sales at gun shows require no background check.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, "What if you had to go through a background check?"

Gutierrez responded, "I guess we wouldn't be buying none."
[/b][/size][/color]


So repeatedly (ad nauseam ) the same poorly written and clearly biased report is your response. An agenda driven interview with one lone single gang-banger is the answer to the question "are any gun laws truly effective?

Sorry but I have to completely disregard an interview with a dubious source, who is clearly being led in the questioning, if not coached.

LOL . .  . of course you do . . .  that's always an option

Btw, why did a gun law have to have a "dramatic and substantial" impact to be worthwhile?  What's the compelling interest served by guns that says any law is invalid unless it has a "dramatic and substantial" impact on gun violence? hunting? target shooting?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#183 : July 03, 2013, 12:20:04 PM

What's wrong with a gun law being effective?
The same thing that is wrong with Unicorns and flying pigs and magic fairy dust.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A Nashville gang member told NewsChannel 5 Investigates that he often went to local gun shows to buy guns.

Jonathan Gutierrez said he and other gang members went to gun shows with large amounts of cash and had no problem buying guns despite having a criminal record.

###
Licensed dealers must run background checks, but private sales at gun shows require no background check.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, "What if you had to go through a background check?"

Gutierrez responded, "I guess we wouldn't be buying none."
[/b][/size][/color]


So repeatedly (ad nauseam ) the same poorly written and clearly biased report is your response. An agenda driven interview with one lone single gang-banger is the answer to the question "are any gun laws truly effective?

Sorry but I have to completely disregard an interview with a dubious source, who is clearly being led in the questioning, if not coached.

LOL . .  . of course you do . . .  that's always an option

Btw, why did a gun law have to have a "dramatic and substantial" impact to be worthwhile?  What's the compelling interest served by guns that says any law is invalid unless it has a "dramatic and substantial" impact on gun violence? hunting? target shooting?

What "compelling interest" is served by pink cars that says a law against pink cars is invalid unless it has a dramatic and substantial impact on auto accidents? Using your "logic" there is nothing wrong with a law banning pink cars because there are too many car accidents.


Why does there have to be a "compelling interest served by guns" to stop the enactment of invalid or ineffective laws? Your statement makes no sense. There doesn't have to be a "compelling interest" for we the people to say "we don't want ineffective, invalid, or unnecessary laws (of any type) to be constantly passed and cluttering up the books" The onus is on the lawmakers to prove a law (ANY LAW) is valid, necessary, and effective.

It is the law that must have a "compelling interest served" in order to justify it. Not "pass any law, hope it works, UNLESS there is a "compelling interest" affected by it"


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19561
Online
#184 : July 03, 2013, 02:03:41 PM

What's wrong with a gun law being effective?
The same thing that is wrong with Unicorns and flying pigs and magic fairy dust.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A Nashville gang member told NewsChannel 5 Investigates that he often went to local gun shows to buy guns.

Jonathan Gutierrez said he and other gang members went to gun shows with large amounts of cash and had no problem buying guns despite having a criminal record.

###
Licensed dealers must run background checks, but private sales at gun shows require no background check.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, "What if you had to go through a background check?"

Gutierrez responded, "I guess we wouldn't be buying none."
[/b][/size][/color]


So repeatedly (ad nauseam ) the same poorly written and clearly biased report is your response. An agenda driven interview with one lone single gang-banger is the answer to the question "are any gun laws truly effective?

Sorry but I have to completely disregard an interview with a dubious source, who is clearly being led in the questioning, if not coached.

LOL . .  . of course you do . . .  that's always an option

Btw, why did a gun law have to have a "dramatic and substantial" impact to be worthwhile?  What's the compelling interest served by guns that says any law is invalid unless it has a "dramatic and substantial" impact on gun violence? hunting? target shooting?

What "compelling interest" is served by pink cars that says a law against pink cars is invalid unless it has a dramatic and substantial impact on auto accidents? Using your "logic" there is nothing wrong with a law banning pink cars because there are too many car accidents.


Why does there have to be a "compelling interest served by guns" to stop the enactment of invalid or ineffective laws? Your statement makes no sense. There doesn't have to be a "compelling interest" for we the people to say "we don't want ineffective, invalid, or unnecessary laws (of any type) to be constantly passed and cluttering up the books" The onus is on the lawmakers to prove a law (ANY LAW) is valid, necessary, and effective.

It is the law that must have a "compelling interest served" in order to justify it. Not "pass any law, hope it works, UNLESS there is a "compelling interest" affected by it"

So you acknowledge that some gun laws have an impact it's just that they don't have in your view a "dramatic or substantial" impact and so the don't pass your arbitrary standard for worth?

Saying "we have a lot of gun laws that don't work so we shouldn't pass more" is ridiculous because the "lot of gun laws" we have are ineffective by design. You can't say, for example, that background checks do nothing when you don't need a background check for most purchases. The Santa Monica killer was stopped by a background check, he then assembled a gun from parts buying a key part without a background check by a dealer who designed the part to skirt the background check law. Most people are not as motivated as the Santa Monica killer, so the story ends there for many, but in most states he would have just bought the assault rifle from a private person or a gun show.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#185 : July 03, 2013, 03:33:33 PM

What's wrong with a gun law being effective?
The same thing that is wrong with Unicorns and flying pigs and magic fairy dust.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A Nashville gang member told NewsChannel 5 Investigates that he often went to local gun shows to buy guns.

Jonathan Gutierrez said he and other gang members went to gun shows with large amounts of cash and had no problem buying guns despite having a criminal record.

###
Licensed dealers must run background checks, but private sales at gun shows require no background check.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, "What if you had to go through a background check?"

Gutierrez responded, "I guess we wouldn't be buying none."
[/b][/size][/color]


So repeatedly (ad nauseam ) the same poorly written and clearly biased report is your response. An agenda driven interview with one lone single gang-banger is the answer to the question "are any gun laws truly effective?

Sorry but I have to completely disregard an interview with a dubious source, who is clearly being led in the questioning, if not coached.

LOL . .  . of course you do . . .  that's always an option

Btw, why did a gun law have to have a "dramatic and substantial" impact to be worthwhile?  What's the compelling interest served by guns that says any law is invalid unless it has a "dramatic and substantial" impact on gun violence? hunting? target shooting?

What "compelling interest" is served by pink cars that says a law against pink cars is invalid unless it has a dramatic and substantial impact on auto accidents? Using your "logic" there is nothing wrong with a law banning pink cars because there are too many car accidents.


Why does there have to be a "compelling interest served by guns" to stop the enactment of invalid or ineffective laws? Your statement makes no sense. There doesn't have to be a "compelling interest" for we the people to say "we don't want ineffective, invalid, or unnecessary laws (of any type) to be constantly passed and cluttering up the books" The onus is on the lawmakers to prove a law (ANY LAW) is valid, necessary, and effective.

It is the law that must have a "compelling interest served" in order to justify it. Not "pass any law, hope it works, UNLESS there is a "compelling interest" affected by it"

So you acknowledge that some gun laws have an impact it's just that they don't have in your view a "dramatic or substantial" impact and so the don't pass your arbitrary standard for worth?

Saying "we have a lot of gun laws that don't work so we shouldn't pass more" is ridiculous because the "lot of gun laws" we have are ineffective by design.

First, STOPPING PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!! I never said that. Find the quote-I dare you.

What I have said is "we need to repeal about 90% of the contradictory and ineffective laws and replace them with just a few well written and well thought-out (i.e. not knee jerk) laws, THEN enforce them properly.

Second, What is ridiculous about "we have a lot of gun laws that don't work so we shouldn't pass more"?  Are you implying that "if we have a lot of laws that don't work, then we need more laws that don't work"? Because that IS ridiculous.


You can't say, for example, that background checks do nothing when you don't need a background check for most purchases.

Sure I can. I can say with certainty that "if background checks only apply to less than 50% of sales/purchases (the definition of "most"), then background checks won't work."

But I never said "the principle and idea of background checks won't work". What I said was "most background check laws are ineffective". And the answer is NOT just writing more convoluted laws that have more exceptions than enforceable points. Get rid of all the stupid ineffective loophole ridden laws and replace them with just a few or one really well written law AND ENFORCE IT.

The Santa Monica killer was stopped by a background check, he then assembled a gun from parts buying a key part without a background check by a dealer who designed the part to skirt the background check law.

My point. Why have a law that can be skirted? Why not take the extra time to write the law properly to begin with?

For example, any firearm sale is subject to a background check of the purchaser by the seller if the seller is a licensed dealer, or by a local law enforcement office if the sale is by private parties. Any sale of the following firearm parts (barrel, firing pin, magazine, breach chambers, etc.) is also subject to the same background requirements.

 
Most people are not as motivated as the Santa Monica killer, so the story ends there for many, but in most states he would have just bought the assault rifle from a private person or a gun show.

That is an assumption.

But I see no reason for the exemption for gun shows or private sales. The technology exists for a licensed dealer to do a background check at a show (hey there is an app for that;)   )

And I see no reason why a private sale couldn't require approval by a local LEO.  But the problem is how do you enforce that? How do you keep Juan from saying "hey just give me $150.00 cash and take it"?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19561
Online
#186 : July 03, 2013, 03:56:35 PM

Paraphrasing is not putting words into your mouth, at least that was not the intent.
Looks like we agree on background checks, except for semantics
Last question - you can prevent it but you can reduce the likelihood by making penalties stiff, by creating immunity if done proper, liability if not, by registering guns. The last one is objectionable to most pro/gun people I think.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#187 : July 03, 2013, 04:01:01 PM

It's more than objectionable, it's a dealbreaker.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19561
Online
#188 : July 03, 2013, 04:07:23 PM

It's more than objectionable, it's a dealbreaker.


Right because the government would never come confiscate all the registered cars, but the guns ..., well, of course.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#189 : July 03, 2013, 04:10:20 PM

It was just a silly suggestion on your part, and signifies that you still don't understand the debate you insist on participating in.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
#190 : July 03, 2013, 04:33:54 PM


But I see no reason for the exemption for gun shows or private sales. The technology exists for a licensed dealer to do a background check at a show (hey there is an app for that;)   )


FFL dealers already have to do background checks at gun shows, and they do.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19561
Online
#191 : July 03, 2013, 10:55:52 PM


But I see no reason for the exemption for gun shows or private sales. The technology exists for a licensed dealer to do a background check at a show (hey there is an app for that;)   )


FFL dealers already have to do background checks at gun shows, and they do.

Are there non-FFL sellers/dealers at gun shows?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
#192 : July 03, 2013, 11:06:31 PM


But I see no reason for the exemption for gun shows or private sales. The technology exists for a licensed dealer to do a background check at a show (hey there is an app for that;)   )


FFL dealers already have to do background checks at gun shows, and they do.

Are there non-FFL sellers/dealers at gun shows?

Yup, but the number of "private" sales I have seen I'm thinking I can count on 1 finger. Make that 0.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19561
Online
#193 : July 03, 2013, 11:12:44 PM


But I see no reason for the exemption for gun shows or private sales. The technology exists for a licensed dealer to do a background check at a show (hey there is an app for that;)   )


FFL dealers already have to do background checks at gun shows, and they do.

Are there non-FFL sellers/dealers at gun shows?

Yup, but the number of "private" sales I have seen I'm thinking I can count on 1 finger. Make that 0.

So you're saying when guns are purchased without a background check etc at a gun show its because an FFL dealer is knowingly breaking the law?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#194 : July 04, 2013, 11:47:55 AM


But I see no reason for the exemption for gun shows or private sales. The technology exists for a licensed dealer to do a background check at a show (hey there is an app for that;)   )


FFL dealers already have to do background checks at gun shows, and they do.

Are there non-FFL sellers/dealers at gun shows?

Yup, but the number of "private" sales I have seen I'm thinking I can count on 1 finger. Make that 0.

So you're saying when IF guns are purchased without a background check etc at a gun show its because an FFL dealer or private seller is knowingly breaking the law?


edited for intellectual honesty

Page: 1 ... 11 12 13 14
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: DOJ: Gun violence down, semi-automatics a minor issue « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools