It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103299 comments on the Truthdig story from Apr 20, 2007, titled It's the Guns, Stupid. In it, Truthdig reports that:

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truthdig.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110293 Sep 6, 2013
<cont.>
Besara wrote:
So do you believe that the 20,000 or so current Federal, State, County, Municipal, and City firearms laws on the books are not enough?


Apparently not, otherwise, there would be no need for us to have this conversation, now would there?
Besara wrote:
Would more laws make a difference?


One can hope, though that IS the point of the current legislation.
Besara wrote:
Particularly those who by definition (criminals) don't obey the laws in the first place.


ANYTHING that we can do to deter criminality, particularly the sort of criminality that leads to the wanton massacre of innocent people, men, women, children...is worth the while.

Is that "noble" enough for you?
Besara wrote:
So will more laws make them decide to live their life free of criminal activity?


It isn't so much about encouraging the criminal element to become upstanding citizens (though that would be an ideal outcome) as much as it is about doing what we can to limit, if not eliminate altogether, their ability to impose their criminality on others.
Besara wrote:
How does their motive distract from the subject at hand? Obviously their motive overrides the boundaries of the law.


Because it is not the goal of the current legislation to delve into the mindset of the murderer, only to remove their access to weaponry that would enable them to act upon their motives.

I mean, surely it is not your intent to suggest that anyones' "motive" for murder justifies the act?
Besara wrote:
I see, so criminals don't obey certain laws unless their "stringent". Have to admit, that's a new one. Would you say laws against murder aren't "stringent" enough? Murder has been going on for centuries. Long before the invention of firearms.
So give me an example of a "stringent" law that a criminal will obey.


Again, the goal is to minimalize the weaponry/arsenal available to the criminally inclined by imposing more thorough firearm purchasing requirements to further enforce and strengthen those already on the books

As a matter of fact, from 1999 to 2009, 1.8 million people were blocked from purchasing guns after failing a background check because they had criminal records or suffered from mental illness.

It is a small burden, if "burden" at all, for the honest.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110294 Sep 6, 2013
Besara wrote:
<quoted text>BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That's certainly worked in the illicit drug trade![/sarcasm]
Completely different context entirely, and so, irrelevant to the present discussion...Just more deflection.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110295 Sep 7, 2013
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
That's ridiculous. All that does is strengthen the black market, which is already thriving BTW. It is foolish to think that the "less than scrupulous amongst us", would ever show up at a "legitimate dealer" to purchase a firearm to begin with. They do not do so now, and there is no reason to think that they would begin to attempt a purchase legally, simply because you write another law which they would also ignore.
Well, from 1999 to 2009, 1.8 million people were blocked from purchasing guns after failing a background check because they had criminal records or suffered from mental illness, so they've been 'showing up' whether you think they have or not.

In fact, Seung Hui Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech and Jared Loughner, who targeted Gabby Giffords, both obtained their guns legally and slipped through the cracksof the existing background check system.

The Manchin-Toomey bill addresses this by encouraging states to provide their available records into the federal database and directing future grant money towards creating systems to send records into the database.

The bill will also reduce federal funds to states that do not comply.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110296 Sep 7, 2013
MD Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
LMFAO!!!!
Criminals do not legally buy firearms. So how the hell would a background check change a damm thing? IT WON'T!!!! Criminals WILL STILL HAVE GUNS!
Criminals do not register their illegally obtained firearms. So how would that change anything? IT WON'T!
Please see my above reply to AnswersRus.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#110299 Sep 7, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<cont.>
<quoted text>
Apparently not, otherwise, there would be no need for us to have this conversation, now would there?
<quoted text>
One can hope, though that IS the point of the current legislation.
<quoted text>
ANYTHING that we can do to deter criminality, particularly the sort of criminality that leads to the wanton massacre of innocent people, men, women, children...is worth the while.
Is that "noble" enough for you?
<quoted text>
It isn't so much about encouraging the criminal element to become upstanding citizens (though that would be an ideal outcome) as much as it is about doing what we can to limit, if not eliminate altogether, their ability to impose their criminality on others.
<quoted text>
Because it is not the goal of the current legislation to delve into the mindset of the murderer, only to remove their access to weaponry that would enable them to act upon their motives.
I mean, surely it is not your intent to suggest that anyones' "motive" for murder justifies the act?
<quoted text>
Again, the goal is to minimalize the weaponry/arsenal available to the criminally inclined by imposing more thorough firearm purchasing requirements to further enforce and strengthen those already on the books
As a matter of fact, from 1999 to 2009, 1.8 million people were blocked from purchasing guns after failing a background check because they had criminal records or suffered from mental illness.
It is a small burden, if "burden" at all, for the honest.
"As a matter of fact, from 1999 to 2009, 1.8 million people were blocked from purchasing guns after failing a background check because they had criminal records or suffered from mental illness."

So how many of those 1.8 million people went about stealing a gun from somewhere else or purchasing from a yard sale...a bulletin board ad...a classified ad...or Craigs List...? Those people were NOT stopped from acquiring a firearm.

How many of those 1.8 million people were convicted felons...? Their attempted purchase of a firearm is another felony but the vast majority of them were never charged or prosecuted for that felony offense...WHY...?

Because according to Uncle Joe Biden, "WE", the United Staes of America collectively, don't have the resources to prosecute them.

SO, until "WE" can start enforcing the current laws to see what affect that would have, "I", and many others, will NOT support the expansion of a law into private sales.
truth

Perth, Australia

#110300 Sep 7, 2013
your law is not my law..no
as never been..
victim don't have law as well don't need respect or call any sort of Law..

95-2013=18 years is long period spiting over someone

my life stop 92 days when i come in this country..

byyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#110301 Sep 7, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, from 1999 to 2009, 1.8 million people were blocked from purchasing guns after failing a background check because they had criminal records or suffered from mental illness, so they've been 'showing up' whether you think they have or not.
In fact, Seung Hui Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech and Jared Loughner, who targeted Gabby Giffords, both obtained their guns legally and slipped through the cracksof the existing background check system.
The Manchin-Toomey bill addresses this by encouraging states to provide their available records into the federal database and directing future grant money towards creating systems to send records into the database.
The bill will also reduce federal funds to states that do not comply.
"In fact, Seung Hui Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech and Jared Loughner, who targeted Gabby Giffords, both obtained their guns legally and slipped through the cracksof the existing background check system."

You really should try and not contradict yourself in one sentence. They did obtain their firearms legally, therefore there was NO "crack" in the existing system for them to slip thru.

There were opportunites for both of them to be identified as people in need of assistance, but those in positions of authority to take that action failed. Because of these failures, they were never identified as someone that would be on the list to be denied the legal purchase of a firearm.
truth

Perth, Australia

#110302 Sep 7, 2013
Are you for sure on Mars don't exist life?
o gee
red dust is perfect full of iron fe

Please tell me!

How small bacteria can exist as alive intellect toward huge and great numbers..liars!?
truth

Perth, Australia

#110303 Sep 7, 2013
My lovely God!
Know perfectly about scribe pharisee and so on about law..

my god don't need money
my god is not god of pride
my god stay on INRI
my god don't need know about law
on Cross INRI law stop
there is not law
there is a not Mercy

spit over me
don't cry when i died
remember your law bot will be my law
neverrrrrrrrrrrrrr

n
truth

Perth, Australia

#110304 Sep 7, 2013
your law is not my law
never will be

i am as i am
always some

n
truth

Perth, Australia

#110305 Sep 7, 2013
i repeat set up corupt way
is not my law
never will be
no

n

please don't cry
don't pray for me
don't come on funeral

i will give my ash to fish for eat..
its money not coast anyone

Are you happy about your evil law?
truth

Perth, Australia

#110306 Sep 7, 2013
Are you for sure apple can be 'bac.l.e'?

chu chichong gjong dojtworry

I am not sure i start speak funny language i don't know which one must be very funny?

'wicket is thirsty over righteousness'

'good news from far away as cold water over dry trout'
truth

Perth, Australia

#110307 Sep 7, 2013
your law is not my law
naturale but true don't ruin my trust in you
my necu=no working

cambodge..bodje bodje is comebodje id
ankh
truth

Perth, Australia

#110308 Sep 7, 2013
U Bos-e chip.u.to.wa don't be greedy
Bos.a is been very nice lady usual she pray in zavite as convent without shoes..usually we call that bos.il.jak=power o gee its jasen tree which grow up
in spring with nice smell and fluffy yellow flowers.
Usually they making grablje for collecting wheat whats left after..u.gr.br.a bite

My lovely Bosa not going be married she have nice attitude toward religion and very devoted person.

Its not nice say necu=no but its as force so quick thinker without any sort of energy or spending any money.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110309 Sep 7, 2013
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
You're funny and a hard one to figure.
You're easy to figure out.
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
I have trouble figuring why you insist that others comply to your definition of things (like "adulthood") and avoid listening to the others who give you their definition,
What are you talking about? I used YOUR "definition" of adulthood in my math...did you miss that part? You brought up the "adulthood" thing. You brought up age, and what constitutes adulthood in your opinion. I am merely asking your AGE, because you're are playing semantics for some reason, to avoid giving your age. I really don't care either way. I simply KNEW you were embellishing the facts regarding being 5 times my adult age.
Now you're back peddling :D
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
and that the deductive information contained in the other person's post is based on the other poster's definition.
Huh? You're making NO sense.
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you that dense or simply that much of a control freak or what?
You are making ZERO sense! Can you be specific to what you're referring to?
I used YOUR definition of AGE in my math....lets try this again!
If you believe adulthood starts at 30....then that gives me 15 YEARS of adulthood!
If you've had 5 times the life experience I've had, then 15 times 5 = 75 and since you claim adulthood doesn't start until 30, then we'd take your age at 30 + 5 times my adult age 75 = makes you 105 years old!
Right or wrong?
Tell me what's wrong with my math......I used YOUR definition!
How can I be a control freak here? That's based on YOUR numbers!!!!
duh
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
I dodged nothing.
Then why not just say how old you are, instead of playing semantics?
You brought your age up! Now when I call you out on your lies, you back peddle.
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
I just now told you, in a third post, how to do it. This is now a third time you have been so informed. sheeeeesh
How to do what?
OMG...why keep dodging how old you are????????
We can all see it!

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110310 Sep 7, 2013
Wait....I got it! You're 55 years old!
My math was off.....if adulthood starts at 30 (in your OPINION), that gives me 5 years times 5 = 25!
30 + 25 = 55!
I think I got it now :)

BUT....fyi, I think we all know adulthood starts at 18 in this country!
I must say, it feels good to hve only been an adult for 5 years. lol
AnswersRus

Lander, WY

#110312 Sep 7, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, from 1999 to 2009, 1.8 million people were blocked from purchasing guns after failing a background check because they had criminal records or suffered from mental illness, so they've been 'showing up' whether you think they have or not.
In fact, Seung Hui Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech and Jared Loughner, who targeted Gabby Giffords, both obtained their guns legally and slipped through the cracksof the existing background check system.
The Manchin-Toomey bill addresses this by encouraging states to provide their available records into the federal database and directing future grant money towards creating systems to send records into the database.
The bill will also reduce federal funds to states that do not comply.
How many of those 1.8 million "criminals" were prosecuted? Less than 10%.

All that happened was you forced about a million people to obtain their weapons illegally. What's the benefit of that?
AnswersRus

Lander, WY

#110313 Sep 7, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Please see my above reply to AnswersRus.
Please address the questions I posed to you in my reply just before this one.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110314 Sep 7, 2013
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
The funny thing is, that you have been asked repeatedly by other posters, about how many of those denied background checks were actually prosecuted.
You now say that to answer that question for you is a twist and a deflection.
Is it raining there yet today?
I did answer about those denied being prosecuted.
Did you miss it? I said the point is MOOT!
The fact that THOUSANDS of criminals are denied every year is PROOF back ground checks work.
Trying to change the goal post to "have they been prosecuted" is a deflection from the FACT that the numbers show it works!
It is not illegal to try and buy a firearm legally. You simply get denied. A lot of people don't even realize they can't buy a gun, and they find out when they're denied. It's not illegal to TRY to buy a gun. It IS illegal to ACTUALLY buy it when denied.

Here's a good example of my point:
"Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Walsh agreed, arguing that there was little point in going after people who had already failed background checks — since they were unable to buy guns anyway.“There’s no way the Department of Justice could have prosecuted all 1.5 million people who were rejected over that 15 year period.”
In the past, Justice Department officials have also said that these crimes are inherently difficult to prosecute, because it’s tough to prove that someone was knowingly and deliberately lying on his or her form."
Thank you Thank you Thank you....and coming from a republican^

Quit playing semantics and deflecting from the astounding numbers.

Don't you think stopping almost 80,000 criminal a year from getting a gun is a good thing? Yes or no?
AnswersRus

Lander, WY

#110315 Sep 7, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
OMG...why keep dodging how old you are????????
We can all see it!
So?
Why keep asking?
The information is purposefully being withheld. Deal with it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Congressman plans to introduce national conceal... 50 min GloriusGoodness 22
News DNC Chair Frontrunner Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Min... 53 min Trump your President 43
News Mapping Reform: Where are Things Likely to Change? 21 hr Scout1 1
News Hudson Proposes National Concealed Carry Bill Dec 6 duzitreallymatter 3
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... (Jun '16) Dec 6 INFIDEL 2,497
My self defense method Dec 3 justice 10
News Ban shooting in and around subdivisions Dec 3 duzitreallymatter 1
More from around the web