|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
Well I'm glad you clarified you weren't being serious, because that's the kind of crap antis come out with all the time.
|
Good speech by Obama, Fox News isn't even covering it though.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
Yep, now that the constitutional approach has failed, time for him to play dirty. Which is nothing new for him.
|
On April 18 2013 06:17 ahswtini wrote:The Toomey-Manchin amendment was just killed. It was the only moderate/bipartisan element that could have drawn enough support. Without it, the Universal Background Check bill is just unpalatable and as good as dead. Think I'll crack open a bottle to celebrate 
Might go buy a rifle.
|
On April 18 2013 06:36 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 03:15 Millitron wrote:On April 12 2013 05:48 WedRine wrote:On April 11 2013 02:54 Kaitlin wrote:On April 11 2013 02:35 WedRine wrote:
i still dont get how going from some people having guns, to everyone has guns can make you feel more safe, just because you have a gun as well? - besides lets say everyone has guns, young people are going to bring them when they go out to party to "feel safe", right, because everyone else has one, you need one as well, right, because 2 drunk college students getting into a fight, is waay worse than 2 drunk armed college students getting into fight... besides people will not stop breaking into your house or what ever, theyll just make sure to shoot first instead of maybe just threatening you or what ever.
less crimes arent going to occur because of more guns, and there are certainly not going to die less people because of more guns... at least thats my opinion. if anybody can tell me how, knowing that everyone has guns will help you feel safer, id apreciate it. First, I disagree with your assumption that someone will still break into your house, regardless of knowing you are armed. Unless the burglar is trying to steal guns, they will avoid any household where they know the homeowner is a) home and b) armed. They also avoid homes with dogs, alarms, lights on, etc. Nobody whose objective is to steal some jewelry to pawn for some cash for drugs is going to choose a gunfight over no gunfight. Second, little old ladies who are seen as victims for purse snatching, etc, are much safer in areas where, even though see may not be armed, the 50 civilian bystanders in the immediate proximity are armed. No mugger is going to strike at an open carry demonstration, for example. As for your example with drunk college kids, gun ownership / concealed carry is a tremendous responsibility. Any responsible concealed carry citizen makes decisions about where they go, and whether they go armed based on this responsibility. It's very irresponsible to go out to a frat party armed. Anybody with common sense will avoid such a situation if they know alcohol, guns, and idiots are going to be combined. Your refutation of common sense gun ownership is pretty much entirely based on illogical assumptions and outrageous strawman situations that have no bearing on responsible gun ownership / possession. Your college party comparison is basically comparable to an argument to ban fire because somebody could light up at a gas station. well since everybody is armed[theoretical], but the the burglar still needs to make a living, he/she'd would have to choose an armed house hold whether that means gunfight or not, the only difference is that you are almost 100% certain that someone is going to die every time a burglary is taking place if everybody owns guns. theres also that story of a dad who shot he's own son because he thought he's son was a burglar, I guess well hear a lot more of those stories if everyone is armed little old ladies getting robbed in front of 50 people on open street are highly unlikely and if it happens at least 1 Of the 50 bystanders are probably going to do something anyways... armed or not. drunk college kids are not exactly known to be responsible in the first place, and i could definitely see people feeling "threatened" to go to parties armed precisely because alcohol and [probably armed] idiots are going to be combined. I just feel like i would be more scared walking around the streets knowing that every single person walking around could legally carry a fool that could take my life. im not afraid to admit that it might be me thats wrong and every single person should be able to legally posses a tool exclusively used to kill people, it just sounds wrong to me. This is simply false. Having a gun does not guarantee someone will die. There are between 100,000, and 4 million defensive gun uses every year in the US, depending on who's stats you believe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_useThere are only 30k gun deaths in the US every year. Even if all of those gun deaths (which isn't true) were from Defensive Gun Uses, its still only 30% at most. Simply brandishing a gun can scare off a criminal, and even if you are forced to shoot him, modern medicine is amazing. He has pretty good odds that he'll survive. The story about that dad shooting his son is sad, but its anecdotal. I can find just as convincing anecdotes about people using guns to defend themselves or their children. The thing is, the news only ever reports about the former, not the latter. Drunks are already not allowed to carry guns. Even if they've got a CC or OC license, they can only carry when they're sober. Are you scared walking the streets now? Every car that passes you is a tool that could take your life. And guns are not used exclusively to kill people. I've fired hundreds of rounds, and I've never killed anything. There are thousands of people like me. Well 30k gun deaths a year in the US ? And they are doing report after report and breaking news after just 3 people beeing killed by a mere bomb ? Now thats a bummer... Well since modern medicine is so amazing we should laxen security checks on airports because even if bombs and stuff go off, we can simply heal them, no harm done. Its maybe even cheaper that way. Well I am relieved that drunk people cant fire a gun. O wait I mean are not allwed to carry a gun, just like they are not allowed to drive drunk ... Well we could also distribute explosives and bombs throught the population, they can also be used as tools to help farming, clear rocks or just have a nice big fireworks. I think most people that would set off bombs will never kill anything... I am just afraid of people who do blow up or shoot other people and since I can not control other peoples minds I simply want these weapons gone, because I find it unsettling that every moron can buy guns. + Show Spoiler +Many things here in this text are ment ironic, for those here that are not capable of understanding this.
And I find it unsettling that every moron can vote. How about a compromise?
Bring back land requirements to vote in exchange for background checks? What do you say? Seeing as most gun owners are rural, and most people who live rural own land...I think it's a fair trade. ^_^
|
Well, I guess there won't be much progress made on addressing the glaring gun control problem here in the US anytime too soon. Looks like all the proposed measures failed to reach the necessary 60-40 majority vote...although most were very close. Better gun control here in the US will happen inevitably. I'd like to see it happen sooner than later though.
|
....meanwhile in the homes of freedom loving Americans everywhere:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 18 2013 08:48 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 06:36 Holy_AT wrote:On April 14 2013 03:15 Millitron wrote:On April 12 2013 05:48 WedRine wrote:On April 11 2013 02:54 Kaitlin wrote:On April 11 2013 02:35 WedRine wrote:
i still dont get how going from some people having guns, to everyone has guns can make you feel more safe, just because you have a gun as well? - besides lets say everyone has guns, young people are going to bring them when they go out to party to "feel safe", right, because everyone else has one, you need one as well, right, because 2 drunk college students getting into a fight, is waay worse than 2 drunk armed college students getting into fight... besides people will not stop breaking into your house or what ever, theyll just make sure to shoot first instead of maybe just threatening you or what ever.
less crimes arent going to occur because of more guns, and there are certainly not going to die less people because of more guns... at least thats my opinion. if anybody can tell me how, knowing that everyone has guns will help you feel safer, id apreciate it. First, I disagree with your assumption that someone will still break into your house, regardless of knowing you are armed. Unless the burglar is trying to steal guns, they will avoid any household where they know the homeowner is a) home and b) armed. They also avoid homes with dogs, alarms, lights on, etc. Nobody whose objective is to steal some jewelry to pawn for some cash for drugs is going to choose a gunfight over no gunfight. Second, little old ladies who are seen as victims for purse snatching, etc, are much safer in areas where, even though see may not be armed, the 50 civilian bystanders in the immediate proximity are armed. No mugger is going to strike at an open carry demonstration, for example. As for your example with drunk college kids, gun ownership / concealed carry is a tremendous responsibility. Any responsible concealed carry citizen makes decisions about where they go, and whether they go armed based on this responsibility. It's very irresponsible to go out to a frat party armed. Anybody with common sense will avoid such a situation if they know alcohol, guns, and idiots are going to be combined. Your refutation of common sense gun ownership is pretty much entirely based on illogical assumptions and outrageous strawman situations that have no bearing on responsible gun ownership / possession. Your college party comparison is basically comparable to an argument to ban fire because somebody could light up at a gas station. well since everybody is armed[theoretical], but the the burglar still needs to make a living, he/she'd would have to choose an armed house hold whether that means gunfight or not, the only difference is that you are almost 100% certain that someone is going to die every time a burglary is taking place if everybody owns guns. theres also that story of a dad who shot he's own son because he thought he's son was a burglar, I guess well hear a lot more of those stories if everyone is armed little old ladies getting robbed in front of 50 people on open street are highly unlikely and if it happens at least 1 Of the 50 bystanders are probably going to do something anyways... armed or not. drunk college kids are not exactly known to be responsible in the first place, and i could definitely see people feeling "threatened" to go to parties armed precisely because alcohol and [probably armed] idiots are going to be combined. I just feel like i would be more scared walking around the streets knowing that every single person walking around could legally carry a fool that could take my life. im not afraid to admit that it might be me thats wrong and every single person should be able to legally posses a tool exclusively used to kill people, it just sounds wrong to me. This is simply false. Having a gun does not guarantee someone will die. There are between 100,000, and 4 million defensive gun uses every year in the US, depending on who's stats you believe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_useThere are only 30k gun deaths in the US every year. Even if all of those gun deaths (which isn't true) were from Defensive Gun Uses, its still only 30% at most. Simply brandishing a gun can scare off a criminal, and even if you are forced to shoot him, modern medicine is amazing. He has pretty good odds that he'll survive. The story about that dad shooting his son is sad, but its anecdotal. I can find just as convincing anecdotes about people using guns to defend themselves or their children. The thing is, the news only ever reports about the former, not the latter. Drunks are already not allowed to carry guns. Even if they've got a CC or OC license, they can only carry when they're sober. Are you scared walking the streets now? Every car that passes you is a tool that could take your life. And guns are not used exclusively to kill people. I've fired hundreds of rounds, and I've never killed anything. There are thousands of people like me. Well 30k gun deaths a year in the US ? And they are doing report after report and breaking news after just 3 people beeing killed by a mere bomb ? Now thats a bummer... Well since modern medicine is so amazing we should laxen security checks on airports because even if bombs and stuff go off, we can simply heal them, no harm done. Its maybe even cheaper that way. Well I am relieved that drunk people cant fire a gun. O wait I mean are not allwed to carry a gun, just like they are not allowed to drive drunk ... Well we could also distribute explosives and bombs throught the population, they can also be used as tools to help farming, clear rocks or just have a nice big fireworks. I think most people that would set off bombs will never kill anything... I am just afraid of people who do blow up or shoot other people and since I can not control other peoples minds I simply want these weapons gone, because I find it unsettling that every moron can buy guns. + Show Spoiler +Many things here in this text are ment ironic, for those here that are not capable of understanding this. And I find it unsettling that every moron can vote. How about a compromise? Bring back land requirements to vote in exchange for background checks? What do you say? Seeing as most gun owners are rural, and most people who live rural own land...I think it's a fair trade. ^_^
I'd be happy enough with a poll tax or anything else that ensures that voters actually have some skin in the game.
|
United Kingdom10024 Posts
pretty hefty allegations coming out of obama's guys after this loss. Intimidation, blatant lying etc.
|
Wow.
The NRA got their way again. What a spineless, pitiful Congress.
|
On April 18 2013 09:03 Defacer wrote:
Wow.
The NRA got their way again. What a spineless, pitiful Congress.
You mean we didn't have to sacrifice our constitutional rights from unreasonable sacrifices based on legislation sparked by a tragedy they wouldn't prevent?
DAMN CONGRESS!
/s
Facts don't support gun control legislation arguments. It's entirely an emotional argument. Lol @ willfully lied argument. The tears are delicious. What's really spineless is those who try to pass emotionally-based legislation because of a small tragedy.
|
On April 18 2013 09:07 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 09:03 Defacer wrote:
Wow.
The NRA got their way again. What a spineless, pitiful Congress.
You mean we didn't have to sacrifice our constitutional rights from unreasonable sacrifices based on legislation sparked by a tragedy they wouldn't prevent? DAMN CONGRESS! /s Facts don't support gun control legislation arguments. It's entirely an emotional argument.
Universal background checks do not impede any sane or law-abiding citizen from exercising their rights.
America already restricts the rights of criminals and crazy people for the sake of public safety. Equating the right to bear arms with allowing any dipshit to get a gun without meeting the basic qualifications of competence or sanity is an emotional argument.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
Spineless Congress? For voting to reject legislation that does nothing?
You make it sound like the NRA is some sort of single evil entity. It's not. It's comprised of millions of everyday American citizens. Obama is already labelling it a "special interests group", one step away from calling it a terrorist group. Yet he neglects the fact that the anti campaign is spearheaded and funded by one man. Bloomberg spends much more money than the NRA spends on campaigning.
I'm for one sick of seeing this "90% of Americans support background checks" stat that gets used and used again. You can get a poll to say anything. The people probably don't even realise that background checks exist. Research has shown that the more people know about gun laws, the less likely they are to support more control. If the question is a simple "do you support background checks for gun sales" it's not hard to see where they can get this 90% figure from.
|
On April 18 2013 09:12 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 09:07 stevarius wrote:On April 18 2013 09:03 Defacer wrote:
Wow.
The NRA got their way again. What a spineless, pitiful Congress.
You mean we didn't have to sacrifice our constitutional rights from unreasonable sacrifices based on legislation sparked by a tragedy they wouldn't prevent? DAMN CONGRESS! /s Facts don't support gun control legislation arguments. It's entirely an emotional argument. Universal background checks do now impede any sane or law-abiding citizen from exercising their rights. America already restricts the rights of criminals and crazy people for the sake of public safety. Equating the right to bear arms with allowing any dipshit to get a gun without meeting the basic qualifications of competence or sanity is an emotional argument.
I take it you watch too many idiotic news reports of reporters going into private sales. Do you really think legislation is going to stop people that are disqualified from owning firearms because of mental health or criminal history when there IS NO REGISTRATION TO TRACK THESE FIREARMS?
Try and enforce background checks on private sales. Good luck.
Please cite me some real data that would show it would even have an impact on illegal firearm possession and firearm-related crime.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On April 18 2013 09:12 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 09:07 stevarius wrote:On April 18 2013 09:03 Defacer wrote:
Wow.
The NRA got their way again. What a spineless, pitiful Congress.
You mean we didn't have to sacrifice our constitutional rights from unreasonable sacrifices based on legislation sparked by a tragedy they wouldn't prevent? DAMN CONGRESS! /s Facts don't support gun control legislation arguments. It's entirely an emotional argument. Universal background checks do now impede any sane or law-abiding citizen from exercising their rights. America already restricts the rights of criminals and crazy people for the sake of public safety. Equating the right to bear arms with allowing any dipshit to get a gun without meeting the basic qualifications of competence or sanity is an emotional argument.
Yes they do. Wanna pass on a gun to a relative or close family friend? Nope, gotta go through a FFL. Want to BORROW a friend's rifle? Nope, can't do that. And how do you plan on enforcing UBC? Policeman stops you and asks how you obtained that gun. How will he know you went through a background check? Answer: he can't. And then the anti-crowd will say "you see, this is why we need UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION". THAT is how UBC leads to registration.
And this will affect your average criminal how? Not one iota.
|
United Kingdom10024 Posts
On April 18 2013 09:14 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 09:12 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 09:07 stevarius wrote:On April 18 2013 09:03 Defacer wrote:
Wow.
The NRA got their way again. What a spineless, pitiful Congress.
You mean we didn't have to sacrifice our constitutional rights from unreasonable sacrifices based on legislation sparked by a tragedy they wouldn't prevent? DAMN CONGRESS! /s Facts don't support gun control legislation arguments. It's entirely an emotional argument. Universal background checks do now impede any sane or law-abiding citizen from exercising their rights. America already restricts the rights of criminals and crazy people for the sake of public safety. Equating the right to bear arms with allowing any dipshit to get a gun without meeting the basic qualifications of competence or sanity is an emotional argument. I take it you watch too many idiotic news reports of reporters going into private sales. Do you really think legislation is going to stop people that are disqualified from owning firearms because of mental health or criminal history when there IS NO REGISTRATION TO TRACK THESE FIREARMS? Try and enforce background checks on private sales. Good luck. Please cite me some real data that would show it would even have an impact on illegal firearm possession and firearm-related crime.
I'm not taking sides in this argument but you know as well as i do that anyone can find a statistic to prove their point. You could just then go and find the opposite stat to prove your own point. Statistics mean nothing when they are so obviously manipulated.
|
On April 18 2013 09:17 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 09:12 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 09:07 stevarius wrote:On April 18 2013 09:03 Defacer wrote:
Wow.
The NRA got their way again. What a spineless, pitiful Congress.
You mean we didn't have to sacrifice our constitutional rights from unreasonable sacrifices based on legislation sparked by a tragedy they wouldn't prevent? DAMN CONGRESS! /s Facts don't support gun control legislation arguments. It's entirely an emotional argument. Universal background checks do now impede any sane or law-abiding citizen from exercising their rights. America already restricts the rights of criminals and crazy people for the sake of public safety. Equating the right to bear arms with allowing any dipshit to get a gun without meeting the basic qualifications of competence or sanity is an emotional argument. Yes they do. Wanna pass on a gun to a relative or close family friend? Nope, gotta go through a FFL. Want to BORROW a friend's rifle? Nope, can't do that. And how do you plan on enforcing UBC? Policeman stops you and asks how you obtained that gun. How will he know you went through a background check? Answer: he can't. And then the anti-crowd will say "you see, this is why we need UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION". THAT is how UBC leads to registration. And this will affect your average criminal how? Not one iota.
Don't be stupid, go read instead of pretending to know what you're talking about. The bill didn't require background checks from sales to friends and family only gunshows and Internet sales, ironically making it essentially useless in stopping straw sales.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
|
On April 18 2013 09:14 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 09:12 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 09:07 stevarius wrote:On April 18 2013 09:03 Defacer wrote:
Wow.
The NRA got their way again. What a spineless, pitiful Congress.
You mean we didn't have to sacrifice our constitutional rights from unreasonable sacrifices based on legislation sparked by a tragedy they wouldn't prevent? DAMN CONGRESS! /s Facts don't support gun control legislation arguments. It's entirely an emotional argument. Universal background checks do now impede any sane or law-abiding citizen from exercising their rights. America already restricts the rights of criminals and crazy people for the sake of public safety. Equating the right to bear arms with allowing any dipshit to get a gun without meeting the basic qualifications of competence or sanity is an emotional argument. I take it you watch too many idiotic news reports of reporters going into private sales. Do you really think legislation is going to stop people that are disqualified from owning firearms because of mental health or criminal history when there IS NO REGISTRATION TO TRACK THESE FIREARMS? Try and enforce background checks on private sales. Good luck.
Making it mandatory to wear seatbelts doesn't technically stop people from driving without wearing seatbelts. Yet still, automobile deaths have drastically been reduced since it became law
All it would take is one person to serve time or be fined for selling firearms illegally to deter the average person from breaking the law. Nothing will prevent criminals from committing crime (or not wear seatbelts). But the law will encourage regular people to resist the urge to act or behave irresponsibly.
Would making background checks mandatory end all illegal firearms sales? No. Would it encourage online and gun show vendors to act more responsibly, and make pariahs out of vendors that don't? Yes.
I'm not the one trying to make an all-or-nothing argument, or 'the perfect law' — that's what you seem to be looking for.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On April 18 2013 09:23 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 09:17 ahswtini wrote:On April 18 2013 09:12 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 09:07 stevarius wrote:On April 18 2013 09:03 Defacer wrote:
Wow.
The NRA got their way again. What a spineless, pitiful Congress.
You mean we didn't have to sacrifice our constitutional rights from unreasonable sacrifices based on legislation sparked by a tragedy they wouldn't prevent? DAMN CONGRESS! /s Facts don't support gun control legislation arguments. It's entirely an emotional argument. Universal background checks do now impede any sane or law-abiding citizen from exercising their rights. America already restricts the rights of criminals and crazy people for the sake of public safety. Equating the right to bear arms with allowing any dipshit to get a gun without meeting the basic qualifications of competence or sanity is an emotional argument. Yes they do. Wanna pass on a gun to a relative or close family friend? Nope, gotta go through a FFL. Want to BORROW a friend's rifle? Nope, can't do that. And how do you plan on enforcing UBC? Policeman stops you and asks how you obtained that gun. How will he know you went through a background check? Answer: he can't. And then the anti-crowd will say "you see, this is why we need UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION". THAT is how UBC leads to registration. And this will affect your average criminal how? Not one iota. Don't be stupid, go read instead of pretending to know what you're talking about. The bill didn't require background checks from sales to friends and family only gunshows and Internet sales, ironically making it essentially useless in stopping straw sales.
No, the Schumer bill does require background checks. The Toomey-Manchin AMENDMENT to that bill is what you're talking about. Get a clue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
