Pointing out that many mass shooters obeyed anti gunners gun laws....offensive....

[M14 Shooter]

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

Which law abiding citizen has been denied their right to buy a gun?

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

I get your point but what exactly is his bitch if law abiding citizens are still buying guns? Spare me the crystal ball predictions and conspiracy theories.

The "bitch" should be obvious -- there's no sound reason to make it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms when doing so does not prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns.

So it`s really about crybabies having to fill out too many forms....

No. Its about restricting the exercise of a right to no good purpose.
There's no sound reason to do this.

 

[Pogo]

Which law abiding citizen has been denied their right to buy a gun?

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

I get your point but what exactly is his bitch if law abiding citizens are still buying guns? Spare me the crystal ball predictions and conspiracy theories.

The "bitch" should be obvious -- there's no sound reason to make it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms when doing so does not prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns.

So it`s really about crybabies having to fill out too many forms....

No. Its about restricting the exercise of a right to no good purpose.
There's no sound reason to do this.

We must amend the list:
Apparently M14 can only argue from ignorance, emotion, dishonesty and/or ipse dixit.
The old "I know what you said but I'll decide what you really mean" gambit. Works every time. Not.

 

[August West]

Which law abiding citizen has been denied their right to buy a gun?

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

I get your point but what exactly is his bitch if law abiding citizens are still buying guns? Spare me the crystal ball predictions and conspiracy theories.

The "bitch" should be obvious -- there's no sound reason to make it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms when doing so does not prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns.

So it`s really about crybabies having to fill out too many forms....

No. Its about restricting the exercise of a right to no good purpose.
There's no sound reason to do this.

2.1 million gun sales stopped by background checks in 20 years Brady report finds - The Washington Post
There are 2.1 million sound reasons to do this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

I get your point but what exactly is his bitch if law abiding citizens are still buying guns? Spare me the crystal ball predictions and conspiracy theories.

The "bitch" should be obvious -- there's no sound reason to make it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms when doing so does not prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns.

So it`s really about crybabies having to fill out too many forms....

No. Its about restricting the exercise of a right to no good purpose.
There's no sound reason to do this.

2.1 million gun sales stopped by background checks in 20 years Brady report finds - The Washington Post
There are 2.1 million sound reasons to do this.

That's propaganda,
How many of those stops were eventually allowed to go through?
How many of those were final stopped due to criminal activity?
How many of those criminals were prosecuted for trying to buy a gun?
If background checks stop criminals from buying guns, who do so many criminals have guns?

Note: I don't really exepect you to respond with anything substantive..

 

[martybegan]

2 facts here:
1: it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking the law
2: Anti-gun loons don't care about any of that, they just want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms.

More evidence that M14 can only argue from ignorance, emotion and/or dishonesty. Usually you get the package deal.

Nobody wants to make it harder to exercise a "right". I think what they want is to make it harder to exercise a fantasy. Specifically that comic book cartoon shoot-em-up violence fantasy that we get indoctrinated with from infancy. Wailing about "right to arms" to defend mass shooters is a flaming cop-out. It ain't about "right to arms". It never was.

They already have. In NYC I have to spend over $800 of my own money, and prove to the NYPD I have a "need" to get a concealed carry permit.
Even for a home permit the cost is over $400 and it takes months to get one. Meanwhile a retired cop has his own CHECKMARK to pass most of the restrictions, and of course, buddies of the politicians can get bypassed through the system.

How is that not "making it harder" to exercise my rights?

It may be, in effect -- my point is that isn't the intent.
The poster posted, quote, "they just want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms" --- which speaks of intent. And the intent he posits is a blatant strawman.

Obviously it is neither a "right to arms", nor any infringement thereof, that is killing any innocent bystanders. He's deliberately misstated the issue because he can't address the real one. And I called him on it.

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

Which law abiding citizen has been denied their right to buy a gun?

I cannot get a CCW without proving to NYPD i "need" one.

and the standard is "infringement", not "denial." Getting a handgun permit in NYC for even home use is a months long process, that costs hundreds of dollars. That is infringement.

 

[martybegan]

2 facts here:
1: it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking the law
2: Anti-gun loons don't care about any of that, they just want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms.

More evidence that M14 can only argue from ignorance, emotion and/or dishonesty. Usually you get the package deal.

Nobody wants to make it harder to exercise a "right". I think what they want is to make it harder to exercise a fantasy. Specifically that comic book cartoon shoot-em-up violence fantasy that we get indoctrinated with from infancy. Wailing about "right to arms" to defend mass shooters is a flaming cop-out. It ain't about "right to arms". It never was.

They already have. In NYC I have to spend over $800 of my own money, and prove to the NYPD I have a "need" to get a concealed carry permit.
Even for a home permit the cost is over $400 and it takes months to get one. Meanwhile a retired cop has his own CHECKMARK to pass most of the restrictions, and of course, buddies of the politicians can get bypassed through the system.

How is that not "making it harder" to exercise my rights?

It may be, in effect -- my point is that isn't the intent.
The poster posted, quote, "they just want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms" --- which speaks of intent. And the intent he posits is a blatant strawman.

Obviously it is neither a "right to arms", nor any infringement thereof, that is killing any innocent bystanders. He's deliberately misstated the issue because he can't address the real one. And I called him on it.

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

No, I know no such thing and I see no evidence thereof. If you think you have a case, make it already.

Nice dodge, there, dickless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I cannot get a CCW without proving to NYPD i "need" one.
and the standard is "infringement", not "denial." Getting a handgun permit in NYC for even home use is a months long process, that costs hundreds of dollars. That is infringement.

Imagine how much they would whine and cry if you had to prove to the state that you need an abortion, that it would cost hundreds of dollars in state fees/permits/taxes, and the process might take months.

 

[martybegan]

I cannot get a CCW without proving to NYPD i "need" one.
and the standard is "infringement", not "denial." Getting a handgun permit in NYC for even home use is a months long process, that costs hundreds of dollars. That is infringement.

Imagine how much they would whine and cry if you had to prove to the state that you need an abortion, that it would cost hundreds of dollars in state fees/permits/taxes, and the process might take months.

Or if you had to pay for a jury trial.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I cannot get a CCW without proving to NYPD i "need" one.
and the standard is "infringement", not "denial." Getting a handgun permit in NYC for even home use is a months long process, that costs hundreds of dollars. That is infringement.

Imagine how much they would whine and cry if you had to prove to the state that you need an abortion, that it would cost hundreds of dollars in state fees/permits/taxes, and the process might take months.

Or if you had to pay for a jury trial.

Or a public defender.

 

[2aguy]

FBI Violent Crime


In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

Sorry all defenses aren't against violent crimes, your claim is just silly.

brain.......by having the gun...and using it....they stop all 4 of those from happening........robbery....is an interaction between a victim and a criminal....so you have just proven my point...the FBI did it for you.....thanks.....

Except those arent the only types of crime defended. Those crimes are only about 10% of all crime. Nobody defends a burglary?

brain.....the study only involved respondents facing another human, not even an animal encounter....if the criminal entered their house when they weren't home......there would be no need to use a gun now would there......if the guy emptied their bank account by computer hacking...again.....no need to use a gun.......

 

[2aguy]

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

Which law abiding citizen has been denied their right to buy a gun?

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

I get your point but what exactly is his bitch if law abiding citizens are still buying guns? Spare me the crystal ball predictions and conspiracy theories.

The "bitch" should be obvious -- there's no sound reason to make it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms when doing so does not prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns.

So it`s really about crybabies having to fill out too many forms when they know for a fact that gun laws have never kept a gun out of the wrong hands. People exceed the speed limit every day so we should not post speed limits?

Yes....what is it that you guys don't get...............you make laws against murder, and when someone commits murder you arrest them and lock them up......you guys want to make laws that will stop the crime from ever happening.....that is not possible....if you ban 15 round magazines...the standard for a lot of pistols, then they will steal them or buy them from an illegal source....so you catch them using a gun illegally and you arrest them for that....you don't make a law that makes 99% of gun owners criminals if they have a 15 round magazine which is not used to commit a crime.....

What you guys want is to make cars only go 15 miles an hour because some people speed and get into accidents......that is what you want for guns....

 

[Brain357]

FBI Violent Crime


In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

Sorry all defenses aren't against violent crimes, your claim is just silly.

brain.......by having the gun...and using it....they stop all 4 of those from happening........robbery....is an interaction between a victim and a criminal....so you have just proven my point...the FBI did it for you.....thanks.....

Except those arent the only types of crime defended. Those crimes are only about 10% of all crime. Nobody defends a burglary?

brain.....the study only involved respondents facing another human, not even an animal encounter....if the criminal entered their house when they weren't home......there would be no need to use a gun now would there......if the guy emptied their bank account by computer hacking...again.....no need to use a gun.......

You can stop property crimes with a gun, those aren't violent crimes.

 

[2aguy]

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

Which law abiding citizen has been denied their right to buy a gun?

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

I get your point but what exactly is his bitch if law abiding citizens are still buying guns? Spare me the crystal ball predictions and conspiracy theories.

First...it makes guns harder to buy for the poorest Americans...the ones underserved by police and who live in the most dangerous neighborhoods....any increase in price, any complication for no good reason means that the most vulnerable Americans have a harder time defending themselves against criminals....

How many people on welfare can afford 150 dollars for a concealed carry class then another for the legal part of the class, plus another 50 for the actual permit...then they have to buy the gun...and the ammo...and a holster and a gun safe........how many poor people can afford that........?

 

[2aguy]

FBI Violent Crime


In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

Sorry all defenses aren't against violent crimes, your claim is just silly.

brain.......by having the gun...and using it....they stop all 4 of those from happening........robbery....is an interaction between a victim and a criminal....so you have just proven my point...the FBI did it for you.....thanks.....

Except those arent the only types of crime defended. Those crimes are only about 10% of all crime. Nobody defends a burglary?

brain.....the study only involved respondents facing another human, not even an animal encounter....if the criminal entered their house when they weren't home......there would be no need to use a gun now would there......if the guy emptied their bank account by computer hacking...again.....no need to use a gun.......

You can stop property crimes with a gun, those aren't violent crimes.

Sorry....if you come up on a man breaking into your garage it is now a violent crime....you do not know what the criminal will do to avoid getting arrested and sent to prison, this may be his 3rd felony...in a 3 strikes you're out state....or what he may decide to do to you if you show up, if he decides to add rape and murder to his breaking and entering.........and just encountering you...and you not knowing creates a threat of injury or death....so yes.....that is a dangerous and violent situation.......

You need to think these things through more deeply brain...it would help a lot......

 

[2aguy]

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

I get your point but what exactly is his bitch if law abiding citizens are still buying guns? Spare me the crystal ball predictions and conspiracy theories.

The "bitch" should be obvious -- there's no sound reason to make it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms when doing so does not prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns.

So it`s really about crybabies having to fill out too many forms....

No. Its about restricting the exercise of a right to no good purpose.
There's no sound reason to do this.

2.1 million gun sales stopped by background checks in 20 years Brady report finds - The Washington Post
There are 2.1 million sound reasons to do this.

Yes....did you know that most of those are false positives....not actual felons being stopped? And again...the Brady organization is a rabid, anti gun group...and they lie...never ever trust the gun grabbers......

 

[2aguy]

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

I get your point but what exactly is his bitch if law abiding citizens are still buying guns? Spare me the crystal ball predictions and conspiracy theories.

The "bitch" should be obvious -- there's no sound reason to make it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms when doing so does not prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns.

So it`s really about crybabies having to fill out too many forms....

No. Its about restricting the exercise of a right to no good purpose.
There's no sound reason to do this.

2.1 million gun sales stopped by background checks in 20 years Brady report finds - The Washington Post
There are 2.1 million sound reasons to do this.

Here is the truth....

CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center

But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system. Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious). To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)


Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.


Of the cases referred to the BATF field offices there were still a number of false positives. A 2004 sample found out that about 21 percent of these cases were found to be false positives (the percentage is slightly higher if a weighted sample is used).

 

[Brain357]

FBI Violent Crime


In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

Sorry all defenses aren't against violent crimes, your claim is just silly.

brain.......by having the gun...and using it....they stop all 4 of those from happening........robbery....is an interaction between a victim and a criminal....so you have just proven my point...the FBI did it for you.....thanks.....

Except those arent the only types of crime defended. Those crimes are only about 10% of all crime. Nobody defends a burglary?

brain.....the study only involved respondents facing another human, not even an animal encounter....if the criminal entered their house when they weren't home......there would be no need to use a gun now would there......if the guy emptied their bank account by computer hacking...again.....no need to use a gun.......

You can stop property crimes with a gun, those aren't violent crimes.

Sorry....if you come up on a man breaking into your garage it is now a violent crime....you do not know what the criminal will do to avoid getting arrested and sent to prison, this may be his 3rd felony...in a 3 strikes you're out state....or what he may decide to do to you if you show up, if he decides to add rape and murder to his breaking and entering.........and just encountering you...and you not knowing creates a threat of injury or death....so yes.....that is a dangerous and violent situation.......

You need to think these things through more deeply brain...it would help a lot......

No that doesn't make it a violent crime. If you step outside and find some guy breaking into your car and scare him away with your gun it's not a violent crime. You can't just make up the definition of violent crime.

You realize there are only about 1.2 million violent crimes each year right? So gun owners who are a minority are defending like 30% more crimes than were even commited? That is your argument?

 

[2aguy]

brain.......by having the gun...and using it....they stop all 4 of those from happening........robbery....is an interaction between a victim and a criminal....so you have just proven my point...the FBI did it for you.....thanks.....

Except those arent the only types of crime defended. Those crimes are only about 10% of all crime. Nobody defends a burglary?

brain.....the study only involved respondents facing another human, not even an animal encounter....if the criminal entered their house when they weren't home......there would be no need to use a gun now would there......if the guy emptied their bank account by computer hacking...again.....no need to use a gun.......

You can stop property crimes with a gun, those aren't violent crimes.

Sorry....if you come up on a man breaking into your garage it is now a violent crime....you do not know what the criminal will do to avoid getting arrested and sent to prison, this may be his 3rd felony...in a 3 strikes you're out state....or what he may decide to do to you if you show up, if he decides to add rape and murder to his breaking and entering.........and just encountering you...and you not knowing creates a threat of injury or death....so yes.....that is a dangerous and violent situation.......

You need to think these things through more deeply brain...it would help a lot......

No that doesn't make it a violent crime. If you step outside and find some guy breaking into your car and scare him away with your gun it's not a violent crime. You can't just make up the definition of violent crime.

You realize there are only about 1.2 million violent crimes each year right? So gun owners who are a minority are defending like 30% more crimes than were even commited? That is your argument?

Brain.....the cases cited by Kleck all involved people dealing with other people....and yes....you don't know if the guy is going to shoot, you don't know if he is going to attack....and if you didn't have the gun you don't know what would happen next....the gun stops the attack or possible attack before it happens.....

 

[2aguy]

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

I get your point but what exactly is his bitch if law abiding citizens are still buying guns? Spare me the crystal ball predictions and conspiracy theories.

The "bitch" should be obvious -- there's no sound reason to make it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms when doing so does not prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns.

So it`s really about crybabies having to fill out too many forms....

No. Its about restricting the exercise of a right to no good purpose.
There's no sound reason to do this.

2.1 million gun sales stopped by background checks in 20 years Brady report finds - The Washington Post
There are 2.1 million sound reasons to do this.

another point....

Checking the Logic of Background Checks - Reason.com

Even in surveys conducted before the Brady Act, only a fifth of state prisoners who had used guns to commit crimes said they bought them from licensed dealers. In a 2004 survey, the share was just one-tenth.


Furthermore, a criminal turned away by a licensed dealer can always steal a gun, buy one from someone who does not run background checks, or ask someone with a clean record to buy one for him. Obama is therefore doubly wrong to equate blocking sales through NICS with preventing "dangerous people" from "getting their hands on a gun."


Given these realities, it is not surprising that a 2000 study by criminologists Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found no evidence that the Brady Act had an impact on homicide rates. But according to supporters of expanded background checks, the problem is that the Brady Act did not go far enough.


One difficulty with that argument: As Cook and Ludwig note, most people who use guns to commit crimes—including almost all mass shooters—could have passed a background check. But what about the rest? Would they be thwarted by a broader screening requirement?


Probably not. Forcing private sellers at gun shows to arrange background checks with the help of licensed dealers is relatively straightforward. But in that 2004 inmate survey, less than 2 percent of respondents said they had bought weapons at gun shows or flea markets.


Three sources accounted for almost nine out of 10 crime guns: "friends or family" (40 percent), "the street" (38 percent), and theft (10 percent). It is hard to see how any notional background check requirement, even one applying to all private transfers, can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on these sources. As usual with gun control, the attempt to enforce such a requirement would impose costs and uncertain legal risks on law-abiding gun owners while leaving criminals free to go about their business.

 

[Brain357]

Except those arent the only types of crime defended. Those crimes are only about 10% of all crime. Nobody defends a burglary?

brain.....the study only involved respondents facing another human, not even an animal encounter....if the criminal entered their house when they weren't home......there would be no need to use a gun now would there......if the guy emptied their bank account by computer hacking...again.....no need to use a gun.......

You can stop property crimes with a gun, those aren't violent crimes.

Sorry....if you come up on a man breaking into your garage it is now a violent crime....you do not know what the criminal will do to avoid getting arrested and sent to prison, this may be his 3rd felony...in a 3 strikes you're out state....or what he may decide to do to you if you show up, if he decides to add rape and murder to his breaking and entering.........and just encountering you...and you not knowing creates a threat of injury or death....so yes.....that is a dangerous and violent situation.......

You need to think these things through more deeply brain...it would help a lot......

No that doesn't make it a violent crime. If you step outside and find some guy breaking into your car and scare him away with your gun it's not a violent crime. You can't just make up the definition of violent crime.

You realize there are only about 1.2 million violent crimes each year right? So gun owners who are a minority are defending like 30% more crimes than were even commited? That is your argument?

Brain.....the cases cited by Kleck all involved people dealing with other people....and yes....you don't know if the guy is going to shoot, you don't know if he is going to attack....and if you didn't have the gun you don't know what would happen next....the gun stops the attack or possible attack before it happens.....

There is no attack in property crimes. You can't make up definitions. Are gun owners a magnet to crime that they are defending far more crimes than actually occur? Isn't it obvious your 1.6 number is a joke?