Poll: Do you think more guns means less crime?
Yes
No
I did until I saw these data
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-04-2015, 01:39 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 01:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 01:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. Could you show me where anyone said otherwise?

Show you were someone said what?

That thing you were insisting upon? That anyone is ignoring anything?

I mean, otherwise it kinda seems - what was it someone once said to me? Ah, yes:
Quote:So it is a valid point raised to nothing being said. It is kind of like a fart hovering in an empty room....

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 01:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 01:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Show you were someone said what?

That thing you were insisting upon? That anyone is ignoring anything?

I mean, otherwise it kinda seems - what was it someone once said to me? Ah, yes:
Quote:So it is a valid point raised to nothing being said. It is kind of like a fart hovering in an empty room....

You have completely lost me. What is the "thing" you are referring to?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 01:44 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 01:40 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 01:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That thing you were insisting upon? That anyone is ignoring anything?

I mean, otherwise it kinda seems - what was it someone once said to me? Ah, yes:

You have completely lost me. What is the "thing" you are referring to?

Oh, I dunno. Maybe the thing I literally just explicitly said?
(hint: the keyword is ignoring)

(14-04-2015 01:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You keep ignoring that these are easy laws to bypass when they are so heterogenous. Either you don't get what is being presented to you, or you are intentionally ignoring the points raised in these scenarios.
(14-04-2015 01:31 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Okay, so you are ignoring that these laws are easy to bypass (which could make a sell or a purchase illegal) thanks to the fact that we have 50 different states with 50 different sets of laws. thanks Thumbsup
(14-04-2015 01:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And this still ignores the fact that it isn't only illegal gun purchases that are a problem, but people purchasing guns who do not know how to responsibly use them and/or people who are not mentally competent or stable enough to own or use a firearm.

I don't know where I could have gotten that impression. Sorry.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 01:51 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 01:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 01:40 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You have completely lost me. What is the "thing" you are referring to?

Oh, I dunno. Maybe the thing I literally just explicitly said?
(hint: the keyword is ignoring)

(14-04-2015 01:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You keep ignoring that these are easy laws to bypass when they are so heterogenous. Either you don't get what is being presented to you, or you are intentionally ignoring the points raised in these scenarios.
(14-04-2015 01:31 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Okay, so you are ignoring that these laws are easy to bypass (which could make a sell or a purchase illegal) thanks to the fact that we have 50 different states with 50 different sets of laws. thanks Thumbsup
(14-04-2015 01:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And this still ignores the fact that it isn't only illegal gun purchases that are a problem, but people purchasing guns who do not know how to responsibly use them and/or people who are not mentally competent or stable enough to own or use a firearm.

I don't know where I could have gotten that impression. Sorry.

You clearly think you've made some sort of point, but I have no idea what it is supposed to be. Are you implying that people have not been ignoring anything I have said?

Because if so, you did eventually hit upon it when you acknowledged that enforcing these sorts of laws is an issue. That is the point that I was hoping to lead the conversation towards.

It makes no difference what laws you have, if you can walk across a state line and they change. It makes no difference if something is illegal or not, if you can't track it or demonstrate it or prove it. It makes no difference if one state has good laws, if other states have bad ones.

That is the point. That is what the workaround and loopholes are. That is a big part of the problem. And that is something that gets ignored when people want to play semantics and say "well technically it is illegal", while not acknowledging that it is essentially impossible to enforce because it isn't tracked and the laws are not homogeneous.

That, as has been pointed out, is a big part of the reason why so many legal guns, became illegally owned guns.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
The "thing" being ignored is deeper than an explicit post. It is the result of trying to play semantics while ignoring the real world problem of having 2 buying and selling systems. One where background checks and licenses are required, and another where they are not.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Clear as crystalline quartz, or mud?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 01:55 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 01:31 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 01:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  The onus is on the seller to know that it is legal. If the seller does not know that, he is taking a big risk.

Okay, so you are ignoring that these laws are easy to bypass (which could make a sell or a purchase illegal) thanks to the fact that we have 50 different states with 50 different sets of laws. thanks Thumbsup

I'm not ignoring it. Why do you think I am? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 01:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 01:31 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Okay, so you are ignoring that these laws are easy to bypass (which could make a sell or a purchase illegal) thanks to the fact that we have 50 different states with 50 different sets of laws. thanks Thumbsup

I'm not ignoring it. Why do you think I am? Consider

You have admitted to me before that you would prefer more homogenous laws, perhaps "ignoring" is the wrong word here.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 02:05 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 01:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 01:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm not ignoring it. Why do you think I am? Consider

You have admitted to me before that you would prefer more homogenous laws, perhaps "ignoring" is the wrong word here.

Yes, it is.

I have pointed out that there are laws against these sales and penalties are quite severe. People who are already criminals seem willing to risk it.
People risk breaking the law all the time.

Law enforcement agencies run sting operations when they suspect there are straw purchases or other illegal sales.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 02:07 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 12:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  The sale is illegal if you cannot legally possess the firearm. You would be charged with at least two crimes: buying and possessing.
And possibly others, like transporting.

Sure, if you are not licenced to possess a gun then you (personally) can be prosecuted.


(14-04-2015 01:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  I would say the onus is on the seller to insure it is legal. Selling to someone who can't legally buy it is also a crime.
But if the seller isn't obligated to do back ground checks or sight a fire arms licence then how do they meet that obligation "legally"?
Is it sufficient for them to verbally ask "Are you legally able to purchase and own a fire arm?"
If the buyer responds with "Sure" does that then meet the seller's legal obligation?



(14-04-2015 01:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 01:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  And you would be breaking federal laws. You can't buy a handgun legally except in your own state.

I can't go to Vermont (no license required) and buy a handgun.
A MA resident also can't legally buy a long gun there without a MA firearms license.

Yes, and that point is moot when there is no way to track these particular firearms purchases.
Police officer sees you in possession of a gun, asks you if you bought it out of state, you reply "No" then you are a free man, you reply "Yes" then you are charged for a crime.
Does anyone reply "Yes"? Why would they do that?

(14-04-2015 01:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  The scenarios you have presented are all illegal purchases.
With no documented record of a fire arm sale, no record of the seller or purchaser then how would anyone prove such a transaction occured?
Wouldn't the seller just say the buyer said that they were a legal buyer.
Wouldn't the buyer say they bought within their own state?

(14-04-2015 01:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  A loophole is an unintended consequence of the law or rule.
Private sales were intentionally not subjected to a NICS check.
Why are private sales intentionally not subjected to a NICS check? Are NICS checks unimportant?

(14-04-2015 01:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are both risking federal prosecution.
Only if they say "Yes" to the officer asking the questions, If they say "No" then there will be no prosecution.
I wonder what they will say?



(14-04-2015 01:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 01:15 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  How does anyone prove I did anything wrong during a private sale in a state that doesn't require any background check or license check?

Because you possess a firearm that can be tracked back to the FFL and the original purchaser by serial number.
If the FFL is not in your state and you can't show a legal sale, you're in deep yoghurt.
What if there have been two undocumented private sales? There is no way to prove the current possessor didn't buy the gun in their own state.

I would think the obligation is on the police to prove an illegal sale rather than on the possessor to prove a legal sale. innocent until proven guilty right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: