"Gun Nuts" ???

[legaleagle_45]

If every gun buyer has to pass a background check and go through a waiting period - AND REGISTER EVERY GUN THEY BUY, far fewer guns will be sold on the streets.

Waiting periods do nothing and registration will not work. You might as well be wishing for money to grow on trees because even if a law is passed requiring registration it will be ignored.

 

[rightwinger]

If every gun buyer has to pass a background check and go through a waiting period - AND REGISTER EVERY GUN THEY BUY, far fewer guns will be sold on the streets.

Waiting periods do nothing and registration will not work. You might as well be wishing for money to grow on trees because even if a law is passed requiring registration it will be ignored.

What happens when you get caught with an unregistered gun?

Fine? Loss of weapon?

How long are you going to ignore it?

 

[legaleagle_45]

What happens when you get caught with an unregistered gun?

Fine? Loss of weapon?

How long are you going to ignore it?

Why, after 15 years did Canada have a 60% non compliance rate with their long gun registry despite offering amnesty every single year to gun owners who would voluntarily register?

Why is the non compliance ratio in Australia 67%

Why is the non compliance ratio in California 70%

Numbers confirmed in this law review article: "Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem"

Available for download here:

Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem by Nicholas Johnson :: SSRN

Now I suppose you may wish to incacerate grandpa Joe for 20 years because he never registered his 22 rifle that is in the closet, and to do so you have to provide early release to a rapist, right?

Canada wasted 15 years and $2 BILLION on its gun registration scheme before disbanding it in 2011. For its investment of time and money, the registry was able to help solve one crime.

Registration does not work.

 

[rightwinger]

What happens when you get caught with an unregistered gun?

Fine? Loss of weapon?

How long are you going to ignore it?

Why, after 15 years did Canada have a 60% non compliance rate with their long gun registry despite offering amnesty every single year to gun owners who would voluntarily register?

Why is the non compliance ratio in Australia 67%

Why is the non compliance ratio in California 70%

Numbers confirmed in this law review article: "Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem"

Available for download here:

Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem by Nicholas Johnson :: SSRN

Now I suppose you may wish to incacerate grandpa Joe for 20 years because he never registered his 22 rifle that is in the closet, and to do so you have to provide early release to a rapist, right?

Canada wasted 15 years and $2 BILLION on its gun registration scheme before disbanding it in 2011. For its investment of time and money, the registry was able to help solve one crime.

Registration does not work.

Register your guns or face the consequences
Consequence is a fine or loss of your weapon

You are always free to ignore the requirement. We just need to get your neighbors to turn you in. An offer of a nice reward like a case of Busch Beer should do the trick

 

[legaleagle_45]

Register your guns or face the consequences
Consequence is a fine or loss of your weapon

You are always free to ignore the requirement. We just need to get your neighbors to turn you in. An offer of a nice reward like a case of Busch Beer should do the trick

Why do you support the passage of a law which demonstrably will not do any good?

Why do you need to bribe neighbors to turn violators in? Why did that not work in Canada? Perhaps because they were offered Canadain beer instead of Busch Beer? Why did that not work in Australia? Perhaps because they were offered Australian beer instead of Busch Beer? Why did that not work in California? Perhaps if they offered a Napa Cabernet Sauvignon instead of Busch Beer?

But primarily, why do you insist upon passing laws which will not work? Is it your intent to piss of gun owners for the fun of it?

 

[rightwinger]

Register your guns or face the consequences
Consequence is a fine or loss of your weapon

You are always free to ignore the requirement. We just need to get your neighbors to turn you in. An offer of a nice reward like a case of Busch Beer should do the trick

Why do you support the passage of a law which demonstrably will not do any good?

Why do you need to bribe neighbors to turn violators in? Why did that not work in Canada? Perhaps because they were offered Canadain beer instead of Busch Beer? Why did that not work in Australia? Perhaps because they were offered Australian beer instead of Busch Beer? Why did that not work in California? Perhaps if they offered a Napa Cabernet Sauvignon instead of Busch Beer?

But primarily, why do you insist upon passing laws which will not work? Is it your intent to piss of gun owners for the fun of it?

Yes, we have heard it all before

20 first graders were viciously massacred and there is nothing to be done about it

Background checks won't work
Gun registration won't work
Restricting Assault Rifles won't work
Banning large capacity magazines won't work
Anything that is proposed to restrict access of mass murderers with their weapons of choice is dismissed by the NRA as unworkable. We have to start somewhere. make it more difficult to obtain their weapons of choice

 

[legaleagle_45]

Yes, we have heard it all before

20 first graders were viciously massacred and there is nothing to be done about it

There are plenty of things that can be done. However, you seem to want a quick easy solution for a complex problem. The trouble with quick easy solutions for a complex problems is that the invariably do not work.

Background checks won't work

You never heard me say that. Background checks for all retail sales seem to work ok, forcing crooks to purchase there guns elsewhere. Gun show checks of private sales might do a modicum of good, however if a unscrupulous private seller says to an illegal buyer "psst, meet me around the corner in 15 minutes" not too much is accomplished... EXCEPT the crook will have to find an unscrupulous seller or have a friend with a clean record purchase it for him. Private sales outside of a gun show will also have some favorable outcome... the easier and cheaper you make it for both the seller and the buyer the more likely it is you will have compliance. California reports a 30% compliance ratio with respect to background checks for private sales, which is better than a 0% compliance ratio and it will enable easier sting operations to enforce the requirement. So go ahead and impose universal background checks... just make it easy and cheap.

Gun registration won't work.

Correct. As is easily discernable from the Canadain, Australian and California example, registration would merely be a waste of time and money, better spent elsewhere.

Restricting Assault Rifles won't work

Assault rifles are strictly regulated by the NFA of 1934 and no one is proposing to add any further restictions. "Assault rifle" is defined by the military as a rifle which is either fully automatic or select fire weapon of intermediate power. You are probably referring to an "assault weapon" which is a civilian semi automatic firearm that has certain cosmetic attributes that make it look like an "assault rifle" but is incapable of full auto fire or select fire. Three DoJ studies concerning the 1994 AWB all determined that they did little or no good... that assault weapns are used so rarely in crime and because functional equivalent weapons were available, that any impact on either crime or homicides would necessarily be too small as to be "incapable of accurate measurement.". As such assault weapons bans would merely be a waste of time and money, better spent elsewhere.

Banning large capacity magazines won't work

Same studies concerning the AWB looked into the large capacity magazine issue... same conclusion. As such magazine bans would merely be a waste of time and money, better spent elsewhere.

Anything that is proposed to restrict access of mass murderers with their weapons of choice is dismissed by the NRA as unworkable. We have to start somewhere. make it more difficult to obtain their weapons of choice

Not true. You just wish to impose the burden upon gun owners... because you are not a gun owner and you would not be adversely impacted.

So what would work? In the early 1990s, NYC, Chicago and Washington DC had similar homicide levels and approached the problem in a similar manner. To them the problem was guns and the answer was gun control. When one gun control law did not work, it was not because gun control does not work, it was because the gun control laws were not strict enought. This resulted in a never ending increase in gun control laws until both DC and Chicago had effectively banned functional firearms in the city limits by the eve of the new millenium... However, NYC under Rudy Giuliani tried something totally different. Beginning in 1994, he introduced a policy known as "broken windows" which targeted gang activity and strictly cracked down on the indicia of gang activity even though it was primarily minor crimes.. including graffiti, squeegie men and the like. The results were remarkable. NYC began a steady decline in both crime and homicides until today they are the safest big City in the USA. Chicago and DC rejected the approach (asserting it was "racist" to target gang activities) and continued to rachet up their program against guns, resulting in an almost annual competition between Chicago and DC as to the title of the coveted" "Murder Capital" of the USA with homicide rates well over twice and sometimes 3 times the rate of NYC.

Another avenue which shows much promise is mental healt outreach programs like the ones instituted in Australia and credited with substantially reducing their suicide rates. (Some point to that decrease as proof of gun control success as the suicide prevention initiative and the gun control laws were roughly contemprary with each other..., but if one looks at the figures, the primary decreases were associated with a significant decline of non firearm suicides... so unless guns give off evil vibes which compel people to hang themeselves...)

Why don't we do something that might work instead trying something we know will not work?

Definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, we have heard it all before

20 first graders were viciously massacred and there is nothing to be done about it

There are plenty of things that can be done. However, you seem to want a quick easy solution for a complex problem. The trouble with quick easy solutions for a complex problems is that the invariably do not work.

Background checks won't work

You never heard me say that. Background checks for all retail sales seem to work ok, forcing crooks to purchase there guns elsewhere. Gun show checks of private sales might do a modicum of good, however if a unscrupulous private seller says to an illegal buyer "psst, meet me around the corner in 15 minutes" not too much is accomplished... EXCEPT the crook will have to find an unscrupulous seller or have a friend with a clean record purchase it for him. Private sales outside of a gun show will also have some favorable outcome... the easier and cheaper you make it for both the seller and the buyer the more likely it is you will have compliance. California reports a 30% compliance ratio with respect to background checks for private sales, which is better than a 0% compliance ratio and it will enable easier sting operations to enforce the requirement. So go ahead and impose universal background checks... just make it easy and cheap.




Correct. As is easily discernable from the Canadain, Australian and California example, registration would merely be a waste of time and money, better spent elsewhere.



Assault rifles are strictly regulated by the NFA of 1934 and no one is proposing to add any further restictions. "Assault rifle" is defined by the military as a rifle which is either fully automatic or select fire weapon of intermediate power. You are probably referring to an "assault weapon" which is a civilian semi automatic firearm that has certain cosmetic attributes that make it look like an "assault rifle" but is incapable of full auto fire or select fire. Three DoJ studies concerning the 1994 AWB all determined that they did little or no good... that assault weapns are used so rarely in crime and because functional equivalent weapons were available, that any impact on either crime or homicides would necessarily be too small as to be "incapable of accurate measurement.". As such assault weapons bans would merely be a waste of time and money, better spent elsewhere.

Banning large capacity magazines won't work

Same studies concerning the AWB looked into the large capacity magazine issue... same conclusion. As such magazine bans would merely be a waste of time and money, better spent elsewhere.

Anything that is proposed to restrict access of mass murderers with their weapons of choice is dismissed by the NRA as unworkable. We have to start somewhere. make it more difficult to obtain their weapons of choice

Not true. You just wish to impose the burden upon gun owners... because you are not a gun owner and you would not be adversely impacted.

So what would work? In the early 1990s, NYC, Chicago and Washington DC had similar homicide levels and approached the problem in a similar manner. To them the problem was guns and the answer was gun control. When one gun control law did not work, it was not because gun control does not work, it was because the gun control laws were not strict enought. This resulted in a never ending increase in gun control laws until both DC and Chicago had effectively banned functional firearms in the city limits by the eve of the new millenium... However, NYC under Rudy Giuliani tried something totally different. Beginning in 1994, he introduced a policy known as "broken windows" which targeted gang activity and strictly cracked down on the indicia of gang activity even though it was primarily minor crimes.. including graffiti, squeegie men and the like. The results were remarkable. NYC began a steady decline in both crime and homicides until today they are the safest big City in the USA. Chicago and DC rejected the approach (asserting it was "racist" to target gang activities) and continued to rachet up their program against guns, resulting in an almost annual competition between Chicago and DC as to the title of the coveted" "Murder Capital" of the USA with homicide rates well over twice and sometimes 3 times the rate of NYC.

Another avenue which shows much promise is mental healt outreach programs like the ones instituted in Australia and credited with substantially reducing their suicide rates. (Some point to that decrease as proof of gun control success as the suicide prevention initiative and the gun control laws were roughly contemprary with each other..., but if one looks at the figures, the primary decreases were associated with a significant decline of non firearm suicides... so unless guns give off evil vibes which compel people to hang themeselves...)

Why don't we do something that might work instead trying something we know will not work?

Definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein

Yea...I've heard it before

The only effective solution is more guns

Thanks for playing

 

[Vandalshandle]

As any NRA member can tell you, it would be far more effective to provide each first grader with a bullet proof vest, than it would be to ban large capacity magazines. They should also be provided for people at the movie theater ticket booth, Luby's cafaterias, McDonalds, political town hall meetings, etc., etc.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As any NRA member can tell you, it would be far more effective to provide each first grader with a bullet proof vest, than it would be to ban large capacity magazines. They should also be provided for people at the movie theater ticket booth, Luby's cafaterias, McDonalds, political town hall meetings, etc., etc.

If your position is so sound, why do you have to make stuff up to support it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do the "bad guys" get the guns?
In some states they fill out a "background check" card themselves, being sure to NOT check "yes" on any of the "have you ever been convicted of..." questions.

Federal law requires the dealer to fill this out, and knowingly giving a false answer is a felony.

In most other states someone that can actually pass a background check buys lots of guns and resells them to criminals.

Straw purchaes are illegal under federal law.

And there are dumbasses that display their guns in pretty glass cabinets instead of hiding them in safes, so the bad guys steal the guns.

Ah yes... Blame the victim (woman) for the actions of the criminal (rapist).

If people have to keep their guns in safes or else be held responsible for any crimes committed with those guns, I bet people do a better job of keeping their guns from being stolen.

Unless you create wholesale changes to our current system of law, you cannot do this. Criminal liability in a situation like requires that you show willfull aiding and abetting, which you cannot do.

If every gun buyer has to pass a background check and go through a waiting period - AND REGISTER EVERY GUN THEY BUY, far fewer guns will be sold on the streets.

Pure fantasy. Criminals cannot be required to register their guns, and the fact that a gun is registered will in no way prevent a criminal from stealing/selling it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

As any NRA member can tell you, it would be far more effective to provide each first grader with a bullet proof vest, than it would be to ban large capacity magazines. They should also be provided for people at the movie theater ticket booth, Luby's cafaterias, McDonalds, political town hall meetings, etc., etc.

If your position is so sound, why do you have to make stuff up to support it?

Because NRA logic is sort of a hobby of mine, and I enjoy following their trail in which they start by expressing grief over those killed by guns, and then proceed down a dotted twisting path that eventually ends with the words, to the effect, that, "guns are good for you". I confess that I used to enjoy dealing with the same logic puzzels that the tobacco industry used to put out, but they finally stopped doing it, and simply started addicting everybody in third world countires instead. I kind of miss their instituionalized denial. It was so surreal, that it was kind of like looking at a Salvadore Dali painting from his early years.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Yea...I've heard it before

The only effective solution is more guns

It destroys your credibilty when you have to lie to make your argument... But thanks for playing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As any NRA member can tell you, it would be far more effective to provide each first grader with a bullet proof vest, than it would be to ban large capacity magazines. They should also be provided for people at the movie theater ticket booth, Luby's cafaterias, McDonalds, political town hall meetings, etc., etc.

If your position is so sound, why do you have to make stuff up to support it?

Because NRA logic is sort of a hobby of mine and I enjoy following their trail in which they start by expressing grief over those killed by guns, and then proceed down a dotted twisting path that eventually ends with the words, to the effect, that, "guns are good for you".

So... you make stuff up because otherwise your position is unsupportable.
Got it. Thanks.

 

[Vandalshandle]

If your position is so sound, why do you have to make stuff up to support it?

Because NRA logic is sort of a hobby of mine and I enjoy following their trail in which they start by expressing grief over those killed by guns, and then proceed down a dotted twisting path that eventually ends with the words, to the effect, that, "guns are good for you".

So... you make stuff up because otherwise your position is unsupportable.
Got it. Thanks.

Well...no, you don't get it it, but somehow I didn't think that you would!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Register your guns or face the consequences
Consequence is a fine or loss of your weapon

You are always free to ignore the requirement. We just need to get your neighbors to turn you in. An offer of a nice reward like a case of Busch Beer should do the trick

Why do you support the passage of a law which demonstrably will not do any good?

Why do you need to bribe neighbors to turn violators in? Why did that not work in Canada? Perhaps because they were offered Canadain beer instead of Busch Beer? Why did that not work in Australia? Perhaps because they were offered Australian beer instead of Busch Beer? Why did that not work in California? Perhaps if they offered a Napa Cabernet Sauvignon instead of Busch Beer?

But primarily, why do you insist upon passing laws which will not work? Is it your intent to piss of gun owners for the fun of it?

He supports it because he is an authoritarian. He wants private citizens disarmed. It is actually that simple.

 

[rightwinger]

Register your guns or face the consequences
Consequence is a fine or loss of your weapon

You are always free to ignore the requirement. We just need to get your neighbors to turn you in. An offer of a nice reward like a case of Busch Beer should do the trick

Why do you support the passage of a law which demonstrably will not do any good?

Why do you need to bribe neighbors to turn violators in? Why did that not work in Canada? Perhaps because they were offered Canadain beer instead of Busch Beer? Why did that not work in Australia? Perhaps because they were offered Australian beer instead of Busch Beer? Why did that not work in California? Perhaps if they offered a Napa Cabernet Sauvignon instead of Busch Beer?

But primarily, why do you insist upon passing laws which will not work? Is it your intent to piss of gun owners for the fun of it?

He supports it because he is an authoritarian. He wants private citizens disarmed. It is actually that simple.

How is registering your weapons disarming you?

 

[beagle9]

Yes, we have heard it all before

20 first graders were viciously massacred and there is nothing to be done about it

There are plenty of things that can be done. However, you seem to want a quick easy solution for a complex problem. The trouble with quick easy solutions for a complex problems is that the invariably do not work.




You never heard me say that. Background checks for all retail sales seem to work ok, forcing crooks to purchase there guns elsewhere. Gun show checks of private sales might do a modicum of good, however if a unscrupulous private seller says to an illegal buyer "psst, meet me around the corner in 15 minutes" not too much is accomplished... EXCEPT the crook will have to find an unscrupulous seller or have a friend with a clean record purchase it for him. Private sales outside of a gun show will also have some favorable outcome... the easier and cheaper you make it for both the seller and the buyer the more likely it is you will have compliance. California reports a 30% compliance ratio with respect to background checks for private sales, which is better than a 0% compliance ratio and it will enable easier sting operations to enforce the requirement. So go ahead and impose universal background checks... just make it easy and cheap.




Correct. As is easily discernable from the Canadain, Australian and California example, registration would merely be a waste of time and money, better spent elsewhere.



Assault rifles are strictly regulated by the NFA of 1934 and no one is proposing to add any further restictions. "Assault rifle" is defined by the military as a rifle which is either fully automatic or select fire weapon of intermediate power. You are probably referring to an "assault weapon" which is a civilian semi automatic firearm that has certain cosmetic attributes that make it look like an "assault rifle" but is incapable of full auto fire or select fire. Three DoJ studies concerning the 1994 AWB all determined that they did little or no good... that assault weapns are used so rarely in crime and because functional equivalent weapons were available, that any impact on either crime or homicides would necessarily be too small as to be "incapable of accurate measurement.". As such assault weapons bans would merely be a waste of time and money, better spent elsewhere.



Same studies concerning the AWB looked into the large capacity magazine issue... same conclusion. As such magazine bans would merely be a waste of time and money, better spent elsewhere.

Anything that is proposed to restrict access of mass murderers with their weapons of choice is dismissed by the NRA as unworkable. We have to start somewhere. make it more difficult to obtain their weapons of choice

Not true. You just wish to impose the burden upon gun owners... because you are not a gun owner and you would not be adversely impacted.

So what would work? In the early 1990s, NYC, Chicago and Washington DC had similar homicide levels and approached the problem in a similar manner. To them the problem was guns and the answer was gun control. When one gun control law did not work, it was not because gun control does not work, it was because the gun control laws were not strict enought. This resulted in a never ending increase in gun control laws until both DC and Chicago had effectively banned functional firearms in the city limits by the eve of the new millenium... However, NYC under Rudy Giuliani tried something totally different. Beginning in 1994, he introduced a policy known as "broken windows" which targeted gang activity and strictly cracked down on the indicia of gang activity even though it was primarily minor crimes.. including graffiti, squeegie men and the like. The results were remarkable. NYC began a steady decline in both crime and homicides until today they are the safest big City in the USA. Chicago and DC rejected the approach (asserting it was "racist" to target gang activities) and continued to rachet up their program against guns, resulting in an almost annual competition between Chicago and DC as to the title of the coveted" "Murder Capital" of the USA with homicide rates well over twice and sometimes 3 times the rate of NYC.

Another avenue which shows much promise is mental healt outreach programs like the ones instituted in Australia and credited with substantially reducing their suicide rates. (Some point to that decrease as proof of gun control success as the suicide prevention initiative and the gun control laws were roughly contemprary with each other..., but if one looks at the figures, the primary decreases were associated with a significant decline of non firearm suicides... so unless guns give off evil vibes which compel people to hang themeselves...)

Why don't we do something that might work instead trying something we know will not work?

Definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein

Yea...I've heard it before

The only effective solution is more guns

Thanks for playing

You know after all that he wrote in earnest to you, then you in return write something like that ? This just tells me that you just lost the debate to him. It appears in these words that you are a sore loser, and you were left almost speechless after that exchange. Maybe you can go and conjure up some more b/c, and maybe make a comeback, as I know you can't stand it to remain silent for to long, and so you will at least try to make an attempt at it, even thought it will be a futile one at best (imho).

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because NRA logic is sort of a hobby of mine and I enjoy following their trail in which they start by expressing grief over those killed by guns, and then proceed down a dotted twisting path that eventually ends with the words, to the effect, that, "guns are good for you".

So... you make stuff up because otherwise your position is unsupportable.
Got it. Thanks.

Well...no, you don't get it it, but somehow I didn't think that you would!

No, I get it perfectly - rather than argue against what the NRA actually says, you make stuff up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Register your guns or face the consequences
Consequence is a fine or loss of your weapon

You are always free to ignore the requirement. We just need to get your neighbors to turn you in. An offer of a nice reward like a case of Busch Beer should do the trick

Why do you support the passage of a law which demonstrably will not do any good?

Why do you need to bribe neighbors to turn violators in? Why did that not work in Canada? Perhaps because they were offered Canadain beer instead of Busch Beer? Why did that not work in Australia? Perhaps because they were offered Australian beer instead of Busch Beer? Why did that not work in California? Perhaps if they offered a Napa Cabernet Sauvignon instead of Busch Beer?

But primarily, why do you insist upon passing laws which will not work? Is it your intent to piss of gun owners for the fun of it?

He supports it because he is an authoritarian. He wants private citizens disarmed. It is actually that simple.

He supports it because he is a useful idiot - and an amazing one at that.
Gotta be good at something, I guess.