What if she didn't have a gun?

[Brain357]

Every single gun sold by a dealer at every single gun show goes thru a background check, else the dealer breaks the law.

No background checks for private sales.

In some states you are required to file a blue card to note transfer of ownership or a firearm.

That's good enough.

Some states? I don't think it is very many. And regardless, all gun sales should require a background check. It's just common sense.

 

[hunarcy]

The truth is ....gun laws vary by state...and most of the carnage seems to be taking place in states with VERY LAX gun regulation...so perhaps the laws DO WORK for the most part.... In the states that have effective ones that r enforced...Perhaps if such laws were made universal and gun show loopholes closed..we'd see some progress.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I have no idea where you are getting your information. Would you please link to a site that provides that information?

Now, if you're basing your statement on deaths per 100,000, then you're falling into a statistical trap. If you're making actual state by state comparisons, I don't know how your statement can be justified.

 

[OriginalShroom]

 

[hunarcy]

I've provided it several times actually.
FBI ? NICS 15th Anniversary: Stats Show Success of Gun Background Check System

As I told you before, that link does not back up your claim, yet you keep making the same absurd claim.

Yes it does. You just don't want it to.
Background checks stopped 1 millions sales of guns, it's pretty simple. I am guessing they kept track of denied applications.
It has nothing to do with illegal sales or if they were still able to buy a gun. Stop being an idiot. 2+2 doesn't equal 2000. It just simply means a million applications were denied due to criminal record. You are over thinking it and looking like an idiot.

Perhaps you can cut and paste the part of the article that supports your claim that background checks stopped "1 millions" sales of guns, for I don't see that in the article either. I see where it talks about how many sales have been processed and how many per day, and even how many employees there are to do the checks. But, I don't see where it says how many sales have been stopped.

 

[Luissa]

As I told you before, that link does not back up your claim, yet you keep making the same absurd claim.

Yes it does. You just don't want it to.

Background checks stopped 1 millions sales of guns, it's pretty simple. I am guessing they kept track of denied applications.

It has nothing to do with illegal sales or if they were still able to buy a gun. Stop being an idiot. 2+2 doesn't equal 2000. It just simply means a million applications were denied due to criminal record. You are over thinking it and looking like an idiot.

Perhaps you can cut and paste the part of the article that supports your claim that background checks stopped "1 millions" sales of guns, for I don't see that in the article either. I see where it talks about how many sales have been processed and how many per day, and even how many employees there are to do the checks. But, I don't see where it says how many sales have been stopped.

3rd paragraph bottom. I think my 6 year old could find it.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Luissa]

As I told you before, that link does not back up your claim, yet you keep making the same absurd claim.

Yes it does. You just don't want it to.
Background checks stopped 1 millions sales of guns, it's pretty simple. I am guessing they kept track of denied applications.
It has nothing to do with illegal sales or if they were still able to buy a gun. Stop being an idiot. 2+2 doesn't equal 2000. It just simply means a million applications were denied due to criminal record. You are over thinking it and looking like an idiot.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Aren't you the one that made the claim that background checks prevented 2 million criminals from buying guns? If you read Brain's link you will see it doesn't even back up his less absurd number of 1 million, much less your 2 million.

That link only goes back to 1998 when the current system started. Background checks were started before that.
Why is it so hard to believe at least 1 million if not more were denied after a back ground check? There are millions of felons etc in the US. It doesn't seem absurd at all. It's actually pretty easy to understand.



Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[hunarcy]

3rd paragraph bottom. I think my 6 year old could find it.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

I did overlook that sentence, so in spite of your snotty comment, I thank you for your help.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes it does. You just don't want it to.
Background checks stopped 1 millions sales of guns, it's pretty simple. I am guessing they kept track of denied applications.
It has nothing to do with illegal sales or if they were still able to buy a gun. Stop being an idiot. 2+2 doesn't equal 2000. It just simply means a million applications were denied due to criminal record. You are over thinking it and looking like an idiot.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Aren't you the one that made the claim that background checks prevented 2 million criminals from buying guns? If you read Brain's link you will see it doesn't even back up his less absurd number of 1 million, much less your 2 million.

To date, NICS queries of criminal databases have resulted in 1,065,090 denials, with 88,479 in 2012 alone.

That is old data. A lot has changed since 2012.

Obama changed the regulation right after he was re-elected. It's a lot harder to buy a gun now. Maybe not for criminals, but for your average citizen.

 

[mudwhistle]

I am pretty okay with current gun laws. I think you should back ground check at gun shows, but most do.

Every single gun sold by a dealer at every single gun show goes thru a background check, else the dealer breaks the law.

No background checks for private sales.

Guy, STFU.

There is no way possible to make sure that happens. Not even total confiscations will assure that you brainless twit!!!!!!

 

[Luissa]

Aren't you the one that made the claim that background checks prevented 2 million criminals from buying guns? If you read Brain's link you will see it doesn't even back up his less absurd number of 1 million, much less your 2 million.

To date, NICS queries of criminal databases have resulted in 1,065,090 denials, with 88,479 in 2012 alone.

That is old data. A lot has changed since 2012.

Obama changed the regulation right after he was re-elected. It's a lot harder to buy a gun now. Maybe not for criminals, but for your average citizen.

Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Luissa]

I am pretty okay with current gun laws. I think you should back ground check at gun shows, but most do.

Every single gun sold by a dealer at every single gun show goes thru a background check, else the dealer breaks the law.

Not every, but most like I said.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Brain357]

Every single gun sold by a dealer at every single gun show goes thru a background check, else the dealer breaks the law.

No background checks for private sales.

Guy, STFU.

There is no way possible to make sure that happens. Not even total confiscations will assure that you brainless twit!!!!!!

Registering would make sure that the vast majority of them went through background checks. If a sale doesn't go through a background check it could be tracked to the owner who sold it without one.

 

[Brain357]

Aren't you the one that made the claim that background checks prevented 2 million criminals from buying guns? If you read Brain's link you will see it doesn't even back up his less absurd number of 1 million, much less your 2 million.

To date, NICS queries of criminal databases have resulted in 1,065,090 denials, with 88,479 in 2012 alone.

That is old data. A lot has changed since 2012.

Obama changed the regulation right after he was re-elected. It's a lot harder to buy a gun now. Maybe not for criminals, but for your average citizen.

So you think it's way more than a million? Good.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am pretty okay with current gun laws. I think you should back ground check at gun shows, but most do.

Every single gun sold by a dealer at every single gun show goes thru a background check, else the dealer breaks the law.

Not every, but most like I said.

The only guns sold by dealers at gun shows that do not involve a background check are those sold legally.... which is just another way of sayng that every single gun sold by a dealer at every single gun show goes thru a background check, else the dealer breaks the law.

Why do you refuse to accept this truth?

 

[Brain357]

Aren't you the one that made the claim that background checks prevented 2 million criminals from buying guns? If you read Brain's link you will see it doesn't even back up his less absurd number of 1 million, much less your 2 million.

To date, NICS queries of criminal databases have resulted in 1,065,090 denials, with 88,479 in 2012 alone.

That is old data. A lot has changed since 2012.

Obama changed the regulation right after he was re-elected. It's a lot harder to buy a gun now. Maybe not for criminals, but for your average citizen.

Can you show me where legal gun sales have slowed due to guns being harder to buy?

 

[Brain357]

Every single gun sold by a dealer at every single gun show goes thru a background check, else the dealer breaks the law.

Not every, but most like I said.

The only guns sold by dealers at gun shows that do not involve a background check are those sold legally.... which is just another way of sayng that every single gun sold by a dealer at every single gun show goes thru a background check, else the dealer breaks the law.

Why do you refuse to accept this truth?

He is correct unless the dealer is doing illegal sales, which would seem unlikely.

It is private sales that don't get a background check. For instance I could sell you a gun with no background check. Or shady bob could sell a gun to some criminal with no background check.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmm...it's interesting that folks for reasonable gun regulation measures r called "anti-gun loons"

I understand you do not like the truth, but the truth it remains.

Disagree?
I then issue a challenge:

Present a sound argument for more gun control - "reasonable gun regulation" as you choose to call it.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

Oh look - no response.
Another anti-gun loon that can't deliver. No surprise.

 

[Brain357]

Hmm...it's interesting that folks for reasonable gun regulation measures r called "anti-gun loons"

I understand you do not like the truth, but the truth it remains.

Disagree?
I then issue a challenge:

Present a sound argument for more gun control - "reasonable gun regulation" as you choose to call it.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

Oh look - no response.
Another anti-gun loon that can't deliver. No surprise.

Funny I've shot down every pro gun argument there is on this thread...

 

[mudwhistle]

I understand you do not like the truth, but the truth it remains.

Disagree?
I then issue a challenge:

Present a sound argument for more gun control - "reasonable gun regulation" as you choose to call it.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

Oh look - no response.
Another anti-gun loon that can't deliver. No surprise.

Funny I've shot down every pro gun argument there is on this thread...

Only in your mind.

You are so out of touch with reality you're in danger of being put on ignore by anyone smart enough to stop arguing with you. You are a worse time waster than Twitter.

 

[Spiderman]

No background checks for private sales.

In some states you are required to file a blue card to note transfer of ownership or a firearm.

That's good enough.

Some states? I don't think it is very many. And regardless, all gun sales should require a background check. It's just common sense.

It doesn't really matter as only a small percentage of guns are sold from private owners to other private owners.

It's not the problem you seem to think it is.