Gun Control

[Woodruff]

You may recall, I think as little of Obama as President as I did of Bush. But I guess as long as I don't think he's a dictator, I must be a fan of his?

Hey, you agree with JB, you get lumped in with JB. Didn't see you respond with a litany of Obama's abuses (like, you know, I fucking did).

I suppose if you ignore pretty much everything else I've posted about Obama, you might believe I haven't listed a great number of Obama's abuses. If you ignore pretty much everything else.

Ergo, you're a fan.

So now there's two Phatscotty's? Great.

You could have responded like this:

You're right TGD. I'm just having a little go at Phatscotty. Obama is just as bad as Bush II, so I don't know why JB is making the comparison.

It's really quite disappointing what you've become. I saw hints of it before I left, but I didn't believe. I guess all good things really do die.

Nah, I'm just sick of the bullshit. I'm sorry you're disappointed in what I've become. Brings a tear to my eye. I should clarify, your argument style brings a tear to my eye.

Ah, it's "not bullshit" to claim that I'm an Obama fan. Thanks, "Phatscotty", but you don't seem that sick of it.

[Baron Von PWN]

I put not really. Mainly due to in the American context, guns being so readily available that anyone who really wants a gun can get one illegally. Either through theft or the black market.

I think the answer would be to reduce the supply of guns, which gun control laws might accomplish by reducing legitimate buyers,(legal hurdles ect) which in turn might reduce the amount of guns produced leading to a lower supply of guns available to the black market.

[thegreekdog]

You may recall, I think as little of Obama as President as I did of Bush. But I guess as long as I don't think he's a dictator, I must be a fan of his?

Hey, you agree with JB, you get lumped in with JB. Didn't see you respond with a litany of Obama's abuses (like, you know, I fucking did).

I suppose if you ignore pretty much everything else I've posted about Obama, you might believe I haven't listed a great number of Obama's abuses. If you ignore pretty much everything else.

Ergo, you're a fan.

So now there's two Phatscotty's? Great.

You could have responded like this:

You're right TGD. I'm just having a little go at Phatscotty. Obama is just as bad as Bush II, so I don't know why JB is making the comparison.

It's really quite disappointing what you've become. I saw hints of it before I left, but I didn't believe. I guess all good things really do die.

Nah, I'm just sick of the bullshit. I'm sorry you're disappointed in what I've become. Brings a tear to my eye. I should clarify, your argument style brings a tear to my eye.

Ah, it's "not bullshit" to claim that I'm an Obama fan. Thanks, "Phatscotty", but you don't seem that sick of it.

Exhibit A.

[thegreekdog]

I put not really. Mainly due to in the American context, guns being so readily available that anyone who really wants a gun can get one illegally. Either through theft or the black market.

I think the answer would be to reduce the supply of guns, which gun control laws might accomplish by reducing legitimate buyers,(legal hurdles ect) which in turn might reduce the amount of guns produced leading to a lower supply of guns available to the black market.

Yeah, I've wondered that myself. Wouldn't the targeting of the production of guns be a more effective gun control than restricting the ownership of guns.

It is very puzzling from a common sense or legal standpoint why gun control advocates think that background checks or gun control generally will do anything substantial (if they do not restrict production) to assist with curbing gun crimes. In any event, criminalizing gun ownership has not seemed to work in places like Chicago and DC and the Sandy Hook massacre was committed by someone who obtained guns illegally. So having background checks wouldn't have solved those three incidents.

[Symmetry]

I put not really. Mainly due to in the American context, guns being so readily available that anyone who really wants a gun can get one illegally. Either through theft or the black market.

I think the answer would be to reduce the supply of guns, which gun control laws might accomplish by reducing legitimate buyers,(legal hurdles ect) which in turn might reduce the amount of guns produced leading to a lower supply of guns available to the black market.

Yeah, I've wondered that myself. Wouldn't the targeting of the production of guns be a more effective gun control than restricting the ownership of guns.

It is very puzzling from a common sense or legal standpoint why gun control advocates think that background checks or gun control generally will do anything substantial (if they do not restrict production) to assist with curbing gun crimes. In any event, criminalizing gun ownership has not seemed to work in places like Chicago and DC and the Sandy Hook massacre was committed by someone who obtained guns illegally. So having background checks wouldn't have solved those three incidents.

Are you not an advocate of gun control? Wouldn't your common sense rule out the purchase of one of these?

[thegreekdog]

I put not really. Mainly due to in the American context, guns being so readily available that anyone who really wants a gun can get one illegally. Either through theft or the black market.

I think the answer would be to reduce the supply of guns, which gun control laws might accomplish by reducing legitimate buyers,(legal hurdles ect) which in turn might reduce the amount of guns produced leading to a lower supply of guns available to the black market.

Yeah, I've wondered that myself. Wouldn't the targeting of the production of guns be a more effective gun control than restricting the ownership of guns.

It is very puzzling from a common sense or legal standpoint why gun control advocates think that background checks or gun control generally will do anything substantial (if they do not restrict production) to assist with curbing gun crimes. In any event, criminalizing gun ownership has not seemed to work in places like Chicago and DC and the Sandy Hook massacre was committed by someone who obtained guns illegally. So having background checks wouldn't have solved those three incidents.

Are you not an advocate of gun control? Wouldn't your common sense rule out the purchase of one of these?

I'm an advocate of gun control and I think certain gun control laws can be effectual.

My common sense would rule out the purchase of a World War One artillery piece because it would be in need of repair and would be difficult to transport

[Symmetry]

I'm an advocate of gun control and I think certain gun control laws can be effectual.

My common sense would rule out the purchase of a World War One artillery piece because it would be in need of repair and would be difficult to transport

Cool- we can be gun control advocates together.

[Baron Von PWN]

I put not really. Mainly due to in the American context, guns being so readily available that anyone who really wants a gun can get one illegally. Either through theft or the black market.

I think the answer would be to reduce the supply of guns, which gun control laws might accomplish by reducing legitimate buyers,(legal hurdles ect) which in turn might reduce the amount of guns produced leading to a lower supply of guns available to the black market.

Yeah, I've wondered that myself. Wouldn't the targeting of the production of guns be a more effective gun control than restricting the ownership of guns.

It is very puzzling from a common sense or legal standpoint why gun control advocates think that background checks or gun control generally will do anything substantial (if they do not restrict production) to assist with curbing gun crimes. In any event, criminalizing gun ownership has not seemed to work in places like Chicago and DC and the Sandy Hook massacre was committed by someone who obtained guns illegally. So having background checks wouldn't have solved those three incidents.

Are you not an advocate of gun control? Wouldn't your common sense rule out the purchase of one of these?

Well background checks don't prohibit the sale of guns, they just in theory restrict who can buy them.

So in the strictest sense background checks aren't effective at their stated goal. Restricting certain people from getting guns, as they can get them illegally with ease (due to the large supply of guns).


The unstated goal of background checks, may be to reduce the demand of guns, by discouraging people from buying due to legal hassles.

Personally I think it would be better to simply use other methods to reduce the gun supply in the USA, maybe tax guns, or somehow limit how many can be sold in the domestic market. However the American constitution being what it is makes that difficult. So you have these legal work around which attempt as much as possible to do the same thing.

[Symmetry]

Well background checks don't prohibit the sale of guns, they just in theory restrict who can buy them.

I'm ok with that.

[Woodruff]

You may recall, I think as little of Obama as President as I did of Bush. But I guess as long as I don't think he's a dictator, I must be a fan of his?

Hey, you agree with JB, you get lumped in with JB. Didn't see you respond with a litany of Obama's abuses (like, you know, I fucking did).

I suppose if you ignore pretty much everything else I've posted about Obama, you might believe I haven't listed a great number of Obama's abuses. If you ignore pretty much everything else.

Ergo, you're a fan.

So now there's two Phatscotty's? Great.

You could have responded like this:

You're right TGD. I'm just having a little go at Phatscotty. Obama is just as bad as Bush II, so I don't know why JB is making the comparison.

It's really quite disappointing what you've become. I saw hints of it before I left, but I didn't believe. I guess all good things really do die.

Nah, I'm just sick of the bullshit. I'm sorry you're disappointed in what I've become. Brings a tear to my eye. I should clarify, your argument style brings a tear to my eye.

Ah, it's "not bullshit" to claim that I'm an Obama fan. Thanks, "Phatscotty", but you don't seem that sick of it.

Exhibit A.

True enough, your posts are in there. Thanks, Phatscotty.

[thegreekdog]

True enough, your posts are in there. Thanks, Phatscotty.

Exhibit B.

[Woodruff]

True enough, your posts are in there. Thanks, Phatscotty.

Exhibit B.

Brilliant! Thanks, Phatscotty.

[thegreekdog]

True enough, your posts are in there. Thanks, Phatscotty.

Exhibit B.

Brilliant! Thanks, Phatscotty.

Exhibit C.

You know, my ban hammer is up to 24 hours... just saying I could do this for a while.

[Woodruff]

True enough, your posts are in there. Thanks, Phatscotty.

Exhibit B.

Brilliant! Thanks, Phatscotty.

Exhibit C.

You know, my ban hammer is up to 24 hours... just saying I could do this for a while.

Brilliant! It wouldn't surprise me in the least that you'd happily see me banned again, Phatscotty. In fact, I think you'd be pleased at the idea.

[thegreekdog]

True enough, your posts are in there. Thanks, Phatscotty.

Exhibit B.

Brilliant! Thanks, Phatscotty.

Exhibit C.

You know, my ban hammer is up to 24 hours... just saying I could do this for a while.

Brilliant! It wouldn't surprise me in the least that you'd happily see me banned again, Phatscotty. In fact, I think you'd be pleased at the idea.

Exhibit D.

I really wouldn't be. I'm just wondering how long it will take you to type:

You're right TGD. I'm just having a little go at Phatscotty. Obama is just as bad as Bush II, so I don't know why JB is making the comparison.

It's not that hard. Seriously.

[Lootifer]

So do the 8 people who have voted at time of posting all have reference material at the ready? I am quite keen to see the studies you guys are basing your assertions off.

I eagerly await the links

[Woodruff]

True enough, your posts are in there. Thanks, Phatscotty.

Exhibit B.

Brilliant! Thanks, Phatscotty.

Exhibit C.

You know, my ban hammer is up to 24 hours... just saying I could do this for a while.

Brilliant! It wouldn't surprise me in the least that you'd happily see me banned again, Phatscotty. In fact, I think you'd be pleased at the idea.

Exhibit D.

I really wouldn't be. I'm just wondering how long it will take you to type:

You're right TGD. I'm just having a little go at Phatscotty. Obama is just as bad as Bush II, so I don't know why JB is making the comparison.

It's not that hard. Seriously.

I've said it so many times previously that it really shouldn't be necessary. As you say, it's not that hard. But keep on keeping on, Phatscotty...you're doing what you're good at. At least you know where your talent lies.

[Phatscotty]

I put not really. Mainly due to in the American context, guns being so readily available that anyone who really wants a gun can get one illegally. Either through theft or the black market.

I think the answer would be to reduce the supply of guns, which gun control laws might accomplish by reducing legitimate buyers,(legal hurdles ect) which in turn might reduce the amount of guns produced leading to a lower supply of guns available to the black market.

I did too.

Fortunately, reducing arms is a restriction on our right to bear arms. It would be like reducing voting locations.

The overall answer is that we need to fix our culture. Why doesn't anyone want to seem to do that?

[muy_thaiguy]

So, tell me. What's wrong with background checks for purchasing firearms? Unless you're an ex-con (violent crimes) or something like that, I don't see why people would get their panties in a twist about it.

[Phatscotty]

So, tell me. What's wrong with background checks for purchasing firearms? Unless you're an ex-con (violent crimes) or something like that, I don't see why people would get their panties in a twist about it.

I was asking if they actually work or not. I don't really have a problem with them, accept for they don't really work imo. We are trying to stop murders right? So then let's ask a relative question, like, out of all the gun murders in the USA, how many of them were committed by a person who passed a background check?

And I don't know who has their panties in a twist, unless you are talking about the trolls, who aren't really participating anyways.

[The Voice]

Why the hell does this topic title keep changing? I feel like we'll eventually land at "Why are kittens such a popular poll item?" and retroactively ban everyone who posted up to that point for spamming the thread with posts unrelated to kittens and their popularity at the polls.

As an aside, TheGreekDog, your implication(s) that Woodruff is Juan_Bottom, and Woodruff, your implication(s) that TGD is Phatscotty only make you both look more like the person you're being labeled as. I guess what I'm saying is stop it. Neither of you are as nearly as bad as either of the others. Actually, I quite like reading your posts when they're not being used to egg on the another. I skip past the posts made by PS and JB and move right along to yours because I feel like I can learn something true.

[Night Strike]

So, tell me. What's wrong with background checks for purchasing firearms? Unless you're an ex-con (violent crimes) or something like that, I don't see why people would get their panties in a twist about it.

If the government is notified every time a gun changes ownership, then they would easily have the abilities to create a registry of gun owners. Even if they claim they would never actually build such a database. Does anyone actually believe them when they say that?

[Woodruff]

So, tell me. What's wrong with background checks for purchasing firearms? Unless you're an ex-con (violent crimes) or something like that, I don't see why people would get their panties in a twist about it.

If the government is notified every time a gun changes ownership, then they would easily have the abilities to create a registry of gun owners. Even if they claim they would never actually build such a database. Does anyone actually believe them when they say that?

I grant that's true. Now my question...does it actually matter? Are your personal firearms actually going to make ANY DIFFERENCE if the government goes full-retard-totalitarian? The idea that they would be effective against the military now is ludicrous.

There was a time when they would. I don't believe they could now.

[Symmetry]

So, tell me. What's wrong with background checks for purchasing firearms? Unless you're an ex-con (violent crimes) or something like that, I don't see why people would get their panties in a twist about it.

If the government is notified every time a gun changes ownership, then they would easily have the abilities to create a registry of gun owners. Even if they claim they would never actually build such a database. Does anyone actually believe them when they say that?

They have several such databases.

the ATF Firearms Tracing System (FTS) contains hundreds of millions of firearm tracing and registration records, and consists of several databases:
1. Multiple Sale Reports. Over 460,000 (2003) Multiple Sales reports (ATF F 3310.4 - a registration record with specific firearms and owner name and address - increasing by about 140,000 per year). Reported as 4.2 million records in 2010.[8]
2. Suspect Guns. All guns suspected of being used for criminal purposes but not recovered by law enforcement. This database includes (ATF's own examples[citation needed]), individuals purchasing large quantities of firearms, and dealers with improper record keeping. May include guns observed by law enforcement in an estate, or at a gun show, or elsewhere.[citation needed] Reported as 34,807 in 2010. [8]
3. Traced Guns. Over 4 million detail records from all traces since inception.[8]This is a registration record which includes the personal information of the first retail purchaser, along with the identity of the selling dealer.
4. Out of Business Records. Data is manually collected from paper Out-of-Business records (or input from computer records) and entered into the trace system by ATF. These are registration records which include name and address, make, model, serial and caliber of the firearm(s), as well as data from the 4473 form - in digital or image format. In March, 2010, ATF reported receiving several hundred million records since 1968. [9]
5. Theft Guns. Firearms reported as stolen to ATF. Contained 330,000 records in 2010.[8] Contains only thefts from licensed dealers and interstate carriers (optional).[8] Does not have an interface to the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) theft data base, where the majority of stolen, lost and missing firearms are reported

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
Good old Ron Reagan.

[Night Strike]

So, tell me. What's wrong with background checks for purchasing firearms? Unless you're an ex-con (violent crimes) or something like that, I don't see why people would get their panties in a twist about it.

If the government is notified every time a gun changes ownership, then they would easily have the abilities to create a registry of gun owners. Even if they claim they would never actually build such a database. Does anyone actually believe them when they say that?

I grant that's true. Now my question...does it actually matter? Are your personal firearms actually going to make ANY DIFFERENCE if the government goes full-retard-totalitarian? The idea that they would be effective against the military now is ludicrous.

There was a time when they would. I don't believe they could now.

So the answer is to just let them take away all the guns? Your response just demonstrates why there should be fewer gun restrictions, not more of them. Besides, as others have mentioned (on this site and others), the citizens only have to demonstrate they will fight if necessary in order for many members of the military to ignore such unlawful orders of turning against the citizens.