It's the Guns, Stupid

Apr 20, 2007 Full story: Truthdig 103,368

“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

Full Story
Ah well

Long Beach, CA

#110338 Sep 7, 2013
We except risks every day.

It is a fact that we (including children) would be safer with a speed limit of 55 mph than the 65 we have.

It is a fact that we (including children) would be safer driving only the top safety rated vehicles as opposed to those that just meet the bare minimum.

It is a fact that we are safer in large vehicles (statistically) than smaller ones, yet we are allowed to choose the size.

It is a fact it is better for our health to eat a healthy diet, but there is no law restricting us.

Soooooo......will there be less accidental shootings and such if ALL guns are banned (which, whether you see it or not, is where we are inexorably heading), no matter how miniscule this risk is compared to, say, heart disease? Of course.

But let me ask you this: if we are willing to accept all the listed increases in danger to our lives or detriment to our health for the sake of convenience, efficiency, and fiscal savings, isn't our liberty worth atleast the same?

Learn from history. Our Founding Fathers knew tyranny. Ask the survivors of Pol Pot, or the Jews and others that managed to escape the Nazis.
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

#110339 Sep 8, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<...
Quit deflecting!
Still trying to order people around I see.
I will do as I wish. Your approval is useless and your demands are humorous.
Thanks.
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

#110340 Sep 8, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>I can deal with that.
BUT, why did you bring your age up to begin with then?
you seem like a very confused person.
Because I am older and smarter than you, with 5 times as much adult life experience as you.
Maybe when you get older you will see it was not confusion, but merely your youth and inexperience in determining reality and truth.
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#110341 Sep 8, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>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?
"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."

WRONG...it is illegal...that's why it's called a felony. Why are you defending the criminal acts of criminals...?

You even contradict yourself with this reference;

"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."

NOTE...they even said it is a "crime"...duh...all you and they are doing is making excuses for not complying with the law and allowing criminals to get away to get a gun elsewhere.
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

#110342 Sep 8, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Quit playing semantics and deflecting from the astounding numbers.
...
Make me.
I thought you would like me to act like you. What's wrong now that has you so pissed off?
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#110343 Sep 8, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>
1. It's not ONLY that we do not have the resources to prosecute an extra 80,000 people a year....it's not logical because we can't prove if those people knowingly knew they couldn't buy a gun!
2. Even republican senators agree...it's not just Biden you fool!
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.”
3. There is a gun show loophole...and you know it! There are LAWS that require background checks....gun shows do not have to comply wiht that law...HENCE: The loop hole. Quit playing semantics :)
Use of the "Gun Show Loophole" has been advocated by terrorists you fool!!!!!
In the summer of 2011, Adam Gadahn declared that "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms." He also claimed that, "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card," Gadahn urged Western extremists to follow this path.
Don't be such a fool...you're arming terrorists!
1. Excusing criminal behavior...why are you defending criminal activity...? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...is it...?

2. "Even republican senators agree...it's not just Biden you fool!"

I don't give a rat's arse who agrees...it's illegal and should be prosecuted...otherwise, why have the penelty...?...why have any laws unless they get enforced...? Talk about a hypocrite.

3. "There is a gun show loophole...and you know it!"

No such thing. The law requires Federal Licensed Dealers to conduct the background checks for handgun sales...PERIOD. A "loophole" would be where a licensed dealer could legally sell a handgun without having to do a background check.

"There are LAWS that require background checks..."...FOR FFL DEALERS.

"Quit playing semantics..."

It's NOT semantics...it's the law...I just won't allow you or anyone else get away with attempting to redefine "loophole" to fit your agenda. The "gun show loophole" doesn't exist.
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#110344 Sep 8, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>This^ is how the gun nuts deflect from the numbers!
Instead of acknowledging that MILLIONS of criminals have been STOPPED (documented) from buying guns legally, they AVOID that part, and try to twist it into something bad, because they haven't been "prosecuted"! lol!
...without ever acknowledging the numbers they denied to begin with!
AND, here's a good REPUBLICAN example of WHY they haven't been prosecuted!
"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."
Quit deflecting!
Quit defending the criminal acts of criminals!!!
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#110345 Sep 8, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You avoided the YES or NO question:
Is stopping 80,000 criminals a year from legally buying guns a good thing...yes or no?
I have not ignored ANYTHING about them not being prosecuted. I have replied to that very issue in at least 5 posts...can you read?
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!
EXAMPLE:
"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.
You said "and all you did was stop them from obtaining a firearm"....LOL! Isn't that a good thing? You imply that's it's not that great??? It makes you look desperate.
"Quit playing semantics and deflecting from the astounding numbers.
You said "and all you did was stop them from obtaining a firearm"....LOL! Isn't that a good thing? You imply that's it's not that great??? It makes you look desperate."

Talk about desperate...YOU defend the criminal activities of criminals...then you give a PARTIAL quote (disengenuous) of the person you're responding too...lol

Here is what he said...but of course that doesn't fit your claim so you have to alter it;

"...all you did was stop them from obtaining a firearm at THAT location."
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#110346 Sep 8, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>
1. It's not ONLY that we do not have the resources to prosecute an extra 80,000 people a year....it's not logical because we can't prove if those people knowingly knew they couldn't buy a gun!
2. Even republican senators agree...it's not just Biden you fool!
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.”
3. There is a gun show loophole...and you know it! There are LAWS that require background checks....gun shows do not have to comply wiht that law...HENCE: The loop hole. Quit playing semantics :)
Use of the "Gun Show Loophole" has been advocated by terrorists you fool!!!!!
In the summer of 2011, Adam Gadahn declared that "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms." He also claimed that, "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card," Gadahn urged Western extremists to follow this path.
Don't be such a fool...you're arming terrorists!
BTW...did you catch the lie from your "terrorist"...? That of course is used and repeated to incite the wrath of the ignorant. I would say in your case they were successful.
frammle

Pittsburgh, PA

#110347 Sep 8, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ……
Guns are cool
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#110349 Sep 9, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>No, it's not a "claim"....it's a fact.
I can't help that you are not educated on this issue.
The mere poit that I didn't post a link, doesn't change the FACT...that it's a FACT!
Refute it if it's untrue?
NO?....as expected :)
BUT...I'll play along and help you out!
The Facts -(from a site that acknowledges millions have been stopped since the bil started, but still feels it's unfair to deny thjose people guns....s the site is obviously unbiased to my point)
"All told, in 2010, the FBI and state agencies denied a firearm to nearly 153,000 people via the NICS system. To keep things simple, we will focus on the FBI, using a report on the 2010 data by Ronald J. Frandsen of the Regional Justice Information Service.
About 99 percent of people who apply to buy a firearm are quickly cleared. But about 1 to 2 percent are denied, mainly because the records show that he or she has a felony indictment or conviction. The data also show that about 5 percent successfully appeal their denials.
Applications: 6,037,394
FBI denials: 72,659 (1.2 percent)
Appeals 16,513 (22.7 percent)
Successful appeals 3,491 (4.77 percent of denials)
The main reason listed for a denial is a felony conviction or indictment. Here are some of the key reasons:
Felony: 34,459 (47.4 percent)
Fugitive: 13,862 (19.1 percent)
State law prohibition: 7,666 (10.6 percent)
Drug use/addiction: 6,971 (9.6 percent)
Read'm and weep little dude!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-chec...
Here's the part of the report that you and your article fail to address;

Of your 62,928 denials that violated the law, only 62 were referred for prosecution.

Prosecutors declined to prosecute 18...leaving 44...WOW!!!...isn't that awesome...?

I'm not willing to support a new law that's going to infringe on my rights when the current laws are not being enforced.
YOUR SugarDaddy

Lincoln, UK

#110351 Sep 9, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>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?
Said the Sti nkH oleCu ntBit ch!!!
:-))
Up Yours

Lincoln, UK

#110352 Sep 9, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>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?
Said the Sti nkH oleC untBi tch!!!
:-))
Pale Rider

UK

#110353 Sep 9, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>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?
Said the Sti nkH oleC untB itch!!!
:-))

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110354 Sep 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
I'll answer your questions with an question and answer:

Q: How many of those 1.8 million people stopped a law-abiding citizens from legally purchasing a firearm?

A: NONE!

So what's your point? Inasmuch as the legal measures prevented firearms from falling into the hands of those miscreants, yet didn't prevent you or myself from purchasing them, what does it matter?

The harder that we can make it for criminals to engage in criminality, the better off we all are for it! And that's an empirically documented fact!!

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110355 Sep 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
They "failed" because the regulations weren't as stringent as the new provisions would make them, thereby demonstrating the need for more stringent guidelines in firearm purchases that would serve to seal those 'cracks'.

Thanks for helping me to make my point!

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110357 Sep 9, 2013
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Yet they WERE prevented the legal purchase of a firearm, forcing them to pursue alternative means of acquisition which, in case you're unaware, the increase in difficulty resulting from the new provisions would serve to make it even harder still, perhaps even altogether impossible, for the criminally minded/mentally unbalanced to obtain firearms.

The "benefit" being that we've served to keep just that many more firearms out of the hands of criminals, and even more still once the new provisions are enacted, while any honest, upstanding citizen is still able to legally purchase their forearms.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110358 Sep 9, 2013
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
Please address the questions I posed to you in my reply just before this one.
Happy now?
Up YOURS

UK

#110359 Sep 9, 2013
good grief wrote:
<quoted text>Do you really think anyone believes you are another person when you change your name and post from the same location 3 times in a row within 2 minutes ?
Said the Sti nkH oleC untB itch!!!
:-))
Fling

UK

#110360 Sep 9, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll answer your questions with an question and answer:
Q: How many of those 1.8 million people stopped a law-abiding citizens from legally purchasing a firearm?
A: NONE!
So what's your point? Inasmuch as the legal measures prevented firearms from falling into the hands of those miscreants, yet didn't prevent you or myself from purchasing them, what does it matter?
The harder that we can make it for criminals to engage in criminality, the better off we all are for it! And that's an empirically documented fact!!
WHEN was the last time that any man-made law STOPPED ANYTHING from happening, DEAD IN ITS TRACKS?

TALK ABOUT THAT!

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.

World News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
LDS Apostle visited Tonga (Feb '14) 2 min uiha 23,598
Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 6 min IL Principe 387,265
Sri Lanka arrests 37 asylum seekers sent back b... 7 min F Off Trolls 2
Offer Israeli Arabs money to move to Palestinia... 10 min Themistocles 7
Australia shuts door on asylum-seekers in Indon... 12 min Baa Baa Black sheep 178
Japan country profile 21 min Switches 3
6,200 Eritreans Cross into Ethiopia in 37 days:... 26 min Ethio 5

World News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE