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.
On May 14 2013 02:00 stuneedsfood wrote: In a debate about gun control, I think recognizing the difference between local and federal government is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite to chiming in.
I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.
Here is all I'm pointing out: That guy posted a video saying that the government has taken guns before, and can do it again. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has a proven track record of returning confiscated guns, NOT being the people who takes them.
Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state).
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
I think this was posted earlier in the thread, but there has already been a case where gun confiscation has occured in the United States. It may not be mass confiscation, but this is what people are afraid of.
This example proves the opposite of what you meant. The city instigated the confiscation, and the govt. courts are what resulted in the guns being given back. So....good point.
"Per the agreement, the city was required to relax the strict proof of ownership requirements previously used"
Makes it sound like the city.
But why does it matter if it is the city?
I'm confused by this statement:
This example proves the opposite of what you meant
He said that this is what people are afraid of, so are you saying that he this proves that this isn't what people are afraid of? Or people aren't afraid of this? Or that it because it was fixed that people aren't afraid of it happening again?
What do you mean it proves the opposite of what he meant exactly? I think it's clear what he meant and the video proves it, not the opposite, unless I missed something.
The NRA/pro-gun side has often touted that the US govt. wants to take your guns, and this guy used this video as 'proof' that the being paranoid about gun confiscation is legitimate.
In the Katrina incident, the city stole the guns (you know, the small local government that the NRA supposedly supports), and the federal government, and its laws, is what found the city of New Orleans violating the constitution, and ordered it to return its confiscated weapons.
The federal government was the savior of gun owners and the protector of gun rights. Shocking.
We view the situation differently. To me it doesn't matter if this happened at a city level or federal. There is a precedence of gun confiscation which was aided by the gun registry laws.
As you stated a couple posts back, the federal government asked the city to change their gun registry laws to be more lax. Now they are changing their stance and are asking for an increase in gun registry laws.
Wait--the federal government enforcing the 2nd amendment is proof that they want to steal your guns?
I never said that was proof the federal government wanted to steal your guns. But if the federal government requires all guns to be registered that would have aided the confiscation at a city level.
On May 14 2013 02:00 stuneedsfood wrote: In a debate about gun control, I think recognizing the difference between local and federal government is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite to chiming in.
I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.
Here is all I'm pointing out: That guy posted a video saying that the government has taken guns before, and can do it again. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has a proven track record of returning confiscated guns, NOT being the people who takes them.
Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state).
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
On May 14 2013 02:00 stuneedsfood wrote: In a debate about gun control, I think recognizing the difference between local and federal government is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite to chiming in.
I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.
Here is all I'm pointing out: That guy posted a video saying that the government has taken guns before, and can do it again. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has a proven track record of returning confiscated guns, NOT being the people who takes them.
Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state).
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future.
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
On May 14 2013 02:00 stuneedsfood wrote: In a debate about gun control, I think recognizing the difference between local and federal government is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite to chiming in.
I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.
Here is all I'm pointing out: That guy posted a video saying that the government has taken guns before, and can do it again. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has a proven track record of returning confiscated guns, NOT being the people who takes them.
Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state).
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
Yes, but note what I said after that in a subsequent post.
I knew before that gun violence went down after the Brady bill got passed, I didn't know that gun violence was steadily climbing up until the Brady bill got passed. I just find it interesting.
I think this was posted earlier in the thread, but there has already been a case where gun confiscation has occured in the United States. It may not be mass confiscation, but this is what people are afraid of.
This example proves the opposite of what you meant. The city instigated the confiscation, and the govt. courts are what resulted in the guns being given back. So....good point.
"Per the agreement, the city was required to relax the strict proof of ownership requirements previously used"
Makes it sound like the city.
But why does it matter if it is the city?
I'm confused by this statement:
This example proves the opposite of what you meant
He said that this is what people are afraid of, so are you saying that he this proves that this isn't what people are afraid of? Or people aren't afraid of this? Or that it because it was fixed that people aren't afraid of it happening again?
What do you mean it proves the opposite of what he meant exactly? I think it's clear what he meant and the video proves it, not the opposite, unless I missed something.
The NRA/pro-gun side has often touted that the US govt. wants to take your guns, and this guy used this video as 'proof' that the being paranoid about gun confiscation is legitimate.
In the Katrina incident, the city stole the guns (you know, the small local government that the NRA supposedly supports), and the federal government, and its laws, is what found the city of New Orleans violating the constitution, and ordered it to return its confiscated weapons.
The federal government was the savior of gun owners and the protector of gun rights. Shocking.
We view the situation differently. To me it doesn't matter if this happened at a city level or federal. There is a precedence of gun confiscation which was aided by the gun registry laws.
As you stated a couple posts back, the federal government asked the city to change their gun registry laws to be more lax. Now they are changing their stance and are asking for an increase in gun registry laws.
Wait--the federal government enforcing the 2nd amendment is proof that they want to steal your guns?
I never said that was proof the federal government wanted to steal your guns. But if the federal government requires all guns to be registered that would have aided the confiscation at a city level.
Even if it would have aided them then, it wouldn't aid them now because we passed a federal law outlawing gun confiscation during emergencies. Anyone who tries to do what happened during Katrina would be crucified.
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
On May 14 2013 02:00 stuneedsfood wrote: In a debate about gun control, I think recognizing the difference between local and federal government is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite to chiming in.
I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.
Here is all I'm pointing out: That guy posted a video saying that the government has taken guns before, and can do it again. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has a proven track record of returning confiscated guns, NOT being the people who takes them.
Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state).
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future.
Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ?
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:09 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:05 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:00 stuneedsfood wrote: In a debate about gun control, I think recognizing the difference between local and federal government is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite to chiming in.
I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.
Here is all I'm pointing out: That guy posted a video saying that the government has taken guns before, and can do it again. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has a proven track record of returning confiscated guns, NOT being the people who takes them.
Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state).
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future.
Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ?
He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future.
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:09 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:05 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:00 stuneedsfood wrote: In a debate about gun control, I think recognizing the difference between local and federal government is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite to chiming in.
I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.
Here is all I'm pointing out: That guy posted a video saying that the government has taken guns before, and can do it again. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has a proven track record of returning confiscated guns, NOT being the people who takes them.
Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state).
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future.
Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ?
He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future.
Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future.
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:09 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:05 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:00 stuneedsfood wrote: In a debate about gun control, I think recognizing the difference between local and federal government is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite to chiming in.
I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.
Here is all I'm pointing out: That guy posted a video saying that the government has taken guns before, and can do it again. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has a proven track record of returning confiscated guns, NOT being the people who takes them.
Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state).
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future.
Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ?
He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future.
Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future.
I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually.
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:09 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:05 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:00 stuneedsfood wrote: In a debate about gun control, I think recognizing the difference between local and federal government is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite to chiming in.
I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.
Here is all I'm pointing out: That guy posted a video saying that the government has taken guns before, and can do it again. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has a proven track record of returning confiscated guns, NOT being the people who takes them.
Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state).
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future.
Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ?
He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future.
Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future.
Oh okay, that makes more sense.
Still, I find it hard to use feds overturning a municipal decision to take guns as an argument that feds will take guns. Its hard to take something seriously when the actions of what you're rallying against goes the opposite of what you fear they would do.
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:09 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:05 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:00 stuneedsfood wrote: In a debate about gun control, I think recognizing the difference between local and federal government is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite to chiming in.
I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.
Here is all I'm pointing out: That guy posted a video saying that the government has taken guns before, and can do it again. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has a proven track record of returning confiscated guns, NOT being the people who takes them.
Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state).
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future.
Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ?
He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future.
Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future.
I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually.
I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that.
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
To play a bit of devils advocate here. Speaking just about NYC, I believe 93 was the height of the crack epidemic which began a decline as well. Naturally any drug related violence would decrease proportionately when the rate of abuse decreases. So there's one reason, however I don't know what other densely populated areas were like back then though. Just a bit of a warning, don't mistake correlation for causation, particularly with such complex issues.
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:09 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:05 micronesia wrote: [quote]I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.
[quote]Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state).
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future.
Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ?
He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future.
Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future.
I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually.
I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that.
Your polite tone makes me really want to talk about it with you. PM me if you'd like to discuss.
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:09 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:07 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future.
Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ?
He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future.
Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future.
I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually.
I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that.
Your polite tone makes me really want to talk about it with you. PM me if you'd like to discuss.
How else do you expect people to react when you make such absurd statements?
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:09 micronesia wrote: [quote] In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future.
Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ?
He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future.
Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future.
I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually.
I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that.
Your polite tone makes me really want to talk about it with you. PM me if you'd like to discuss.
How else do you expect people to react when you make such absurd statements?
You're the one putting words in his mouth. I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that the effects of legislation on gun violence are not binary, so stop pretending like people are arguing that.
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:09 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:05 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:00 stuneedsfood wrote: In a debate about gun control, I think recognizing the difference between local and federal government is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite to chiming in.
I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.
Here is all I'm pointing out: That guy posted a video saying that the government has taken guns before, and can do it again. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has a proven track record of returning confiscated guns, NOT being the people who takes them.
Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state).
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future.
Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ?
He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future.
Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future.
Well, such guarantee for long term future is of course nonsensical, but so is the request for such guarantee. Government will not do it in near future and requiring more is not very rational. Pointing out that federal government returned the guns is perfectly valid evidence for pointing out track record of the federal government. So track record and circumstances are good enough guarantee that it will not be used to confiscate weapons in short term. In long term there are no guarantees for anything and rejecting good policies on the off chance that in 30 years someone will confiscate your guns is just stupid. If someone is going to confiscate weapons in 30 years it will happen no matter what policy is implemented today as US society would have to change significantly.
On May 14 2013 02:11 Jormundr wrote: Also, for the people parroting the "Gun violence has been going down since '93" as if it's a huge achievement, please consult the following graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Notice that 93 was the peak year during a massive spike in gun homicide, and thus is not an accurate baseline for a statement about overall trends in gun homicide in the United States. In statistics, this is about the equivalent of crying school children, because it chooses the two most favorable points in history rather than looking at the overall trend which would be more indicative of long term change.
"The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks."
Huh, so gun violence went down where gun control laws got passed? And it actually curbed a then spiking gun violence problem?
Interesting....
Your insinuations are especially strong since there were no other variables during that time period.
On May 14 2013 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:09 micronesia wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 14 2013 02:05 micronesia wrote: [quote]I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.
[quote]Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state).
Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back
In the Katrina example, I'm imagining a situation where the local police force their way into your home and take your gun. Then, unarmed looters/addicts/whatever force their way into your home and your family ends up hurt/killed. Then, you get your guns back after that is over.
You can make the argument for whether or not that family should have been allowed to arm themselves to begin with, but taking away guns that are allowed, and then returning them later since they were illegally confiscated is not acceptable.
Yes. People took a family's guns unconstitutionally, and then the federal government stepped in to reverse it. Which means that despite the existence of a registration, the federal government upheld the 2nd Amendment and is against the taking of guns.
At that time, yes. This isn't proof that the federal government somehow has shown they want to take our guns, but also isn't proof that they won't in the future.
Are you really asking for proof that someone won't do something in the future ?
He wants proof that a government who gave back confiscated guns will not confiscate those same people's guns in the future.
Neither. I just don't want people criticized for not believing pro-control advocates' promises that their guns will never be confiscated permanently in the future.
I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually.
I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that.
Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point.
EPT
