If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On August 30 2014 01:52 Millitron wrote:
The first one only has 20% of guns used in crime being originally owned legally.
"...supply the weapons used in about 20 percent of all crimes."
20% is not a majority. Further, straw purchasing, which is what these middlemen the article mentions are doing, is already illegal.

I can't read the second because you have to pay to get the full file.

On August 30 2014 02:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:


Wow, talk about selective quotation.



9/10 is a very large majority. 20% is the number supplied by 140 specific stores.

And sure, straw purchasing might already be illegal, but obviously its not being controlled very well, or the system makes it very hard to control.

On August 30 2014 02:11 Nyxisto wrote:
"Nearly 9 in 10 guns bought from high-volume dealers and later used in crimes were sold to middlemen who turned around and resold them, according to a report released today."

So 9 out of 10 guns that were used in crimes had before sold to middlemen that were redistributing them. As I understand it a middleman in that case is someone who is able to purchase a gun legally.


You couldn't have misquoted the article in a worse way, congratulations.

On August 30 2014 02:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm totally fine with cracking down on straw purchasing. But the data was cited saying the guns got to criminals through legal means

On August 30 2014 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:
Which isn't a very big surprise if virtually everyone has the right to bear arms.

On August 30 2014 02:19 Millitron wrote:

Selling guns to someone who cannot legally own them is already illegal. Purchasing a gun intending to pass it off to someone who cannot legally own one is straw purchasing, which is already illegal.

The right to bear arms is not going away in the US. If things work out ok for you in Germany not having that right, good for you. I think things work out ok for me in the US with that right. It's a cultural thing, and what works for you might not work for us, and visa versa.

On August 30 2014 02:22 Karpfen wrote:
The data was not cited saying the guns were purchased legally. He merely said that they were originally purchased legally. Originally as in someome who can legally buy one sells it illegally to someone else.

On August 30 2014 02:41 Millitron wrote:

I'm saying that they were not originally purchased legally, since straw purchasing is already a crime.

And this not just someone bought one gun, then years later sold it to an acquaintance who happened to use it in a crime. The numbers are simply too large to be individuals doing it accidentally, or not knowing the purchaser was unable to legally own a gun. The middlemen the article cites must be doing this on a regular basis. You can totally crack down on this kind of thing without affecting harmless citizens. Just like how they'll let things slide if you're caught with a little weed, but they'll track you down over pounds of the stuff.

On August 30 2014 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:


Except we currently cant. We tried, it had 90%+ support from the American people, and failed to pass. And that kid in Texas is looking at 20-life for less than an ounce of cannabis. JS

On August 30 2014 03:20 Millitron wrote:

This is plainly false.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2013/04/the_myth_of_the_90_percent_sup.php

And how do background checks stop straw purchasers anyways? That's the whole point, the straw purchaser has a clean record.

On August 30 2014 02:41 Millitron wrote:

I'm saying that they were not originally purchased legally, since straw purchasing is already a crime.

And this not just someone bought one gun, then years later sold it to an acquaintance who happened to use it in a crime. The numbers are simply too large to be individuals doing it accidentally, or not knowing the purchaser was unable to legally own a gun. The middlemen the article cites must be doing this on a regular basis. You can totally crack down on this kind of thing without affecting harmless citizens. Just like how they'll let things slide if you're caught with a little weed, but they'll track you down over pounds of the stuff.

On August 30 2014 03:20 Millitron wrote:

This is plainly false.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2013/04/the_myth_of_the_90_percent_sup.php

And how do background checks stop straw purchasers anyways? That's the whole point, the straw purchaser has a clean record.

Also interesting: The new poll showed that general support for an expanded background check law fell from 91 percent in mid-January to 83 percent.

Both the general question and the one asking about the failed Senate bill were light on details.

It seems reasonable to guess that if recent polls had asked specifically about the actual provisions of the Machin-Toomey bill, results lower than 90 percent -- or even 65 percent -- might have been obtained.

Gallup says that a minor wording change in the question may have played a role in reducing the perceived general support from 91 percent to 83 percent.

On August 30 2014 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well we are wading into the weeds here but I'll indulge. Even the article you cited says it at least 'had 90%+ support' and even at it's lowest figures show a large majority support/ed it.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how straw purchasers get away with it for so long. They legally purchase the firearm for themselves (not a straw purchase) then they resale it (for a premium) to a new found friend from the parking lot of the gun show (which doesn't require a background check).

"Look ma' no crime". How were they supposed to know the buyer wasn't legally able to own a firearm?!

"Well they should of performed a background check"

"But there is no law saying one has to perform a background check on the shady guy trying to buy a gun in the gun show parking lot"

"Well there should be"

"Let's ask the American people"

"The vast majority of Americans support more background checks"

(Tea Party) "But it's all a plot to take all of our guns after making a registry"

"Actually that's not what the bill says but we will put in a provision that specifically outlaws what you fear"

"Fuck you , fuck the people, we don't care what you want, we wont pass increased background checks or come up with an acceptable alternative ourselves."


Then back to your argument. Repeat ad nauseum

By requiring background checks on non-familial gun sales you make it so that the criminal couldn't legally (for the seller) acquire a gun like they can now.

It's actually pretty simple.

On August 30 2014 04:31 Thalandros wrote:
I've not read most of this discussion on TL in the past but It's most likely the exact same as many other, it's the ''gun-nuts'' vs the ''anti gun radicals'' and I'm one of the latter, because it's simply better. The big reason behind guns in 'Murica is all because of that one amendment made so many years ago. It isn't relevant at all now (if it would be, the rest of the civilized world would also have something similar; we don't. The world, and eventually even US(mostly the middle because they are just so far behind right now compared to the coasts.) will realise that this is all unneeded and luckily some have already. Sure school shootings will always happen in every part of the world and we won't be able to get rid of it entirely, ever. But we will be able to dramatically decrease the amount of accidental or maniac-caused-deaths in the US because of this amendment that is way too outdated. The only question is HOW America will slowly but surely ban guns, not IF. They'll have to at some point, especially if this keeps going, but it's all dependant on how and in what timeframe because right now, the diversity in political opinion in the US is way too big to the point where you cannot make radical changes. It has to be slow but progressive, but it has to happen. Accidental deaths like the 9 year old girl with the Uzi and school shootings so often are really preventable deaths and while I would agree ''It's my right to bear arms, most people do it for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome'' that's irrelevant. There are too many retards on this planet to ignore that and that's also the reason a lot of drugs (except for weed in a lot of the world now) are so looked down upon and banned. It cannot be completely controlled and when accidents happen, they're major and shocking.

Why not ban alcohol then? Its used for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome. Yet it kills ~33% more people than guns.

On August 30 2014 07:40 ZenithM wrote:

Is that the real number? If it is, it speaks for how dangerous guns are, considering way more people use alcohol than guns (at least I would imagine).

Edit: Ok, I've made a quick check myself, apparently those are numbers from 2011:
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,783
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 32,351

Pretty impressive. That's really unimaginable in European countries. I know those are the car accident numbers, but they are widely considered to be the most important cause of death of young people in our countries, so it's relevant to compare that.
And in the end what is to be legal or not comes down to a trade off between usefulness/enjoyability/etc and danger. In the case of driving, it's obvious that allowing people to drive cars is worth the risk. However, with guns, it's not so obvious.

On August 30 2014 08:15 Thalandros wrote:
I agree, alcohol should have more limits than it currently does and the things alcohol does to you is the only reason people give so many shits and want to use it in their younger years either. This isn't an argument for pro-gun users, just another example of shit that should be 1. monitored way better 2. just be removed from all the retards, which isn't possible on a larger scale especially with big political diversity in the US. And Millitron, I mostly meant that the coastal states are more liberal and generally more open to progressive ideas like removing guns, legalising weed and abortion etc. People outside of those states are usually more resistant with changing old laws like the right to bear arms. That's what I meant with that.

On August 30 2014 08:15 Thalandros wrote:
Also pest control isn't an argument at ALL. Pests that are so small you deal with them yourself you don't need guns for - pests that are big enough you can hire a company or if it's state/nationwide, the government will step in. Self defense shouldn't be necessary in a country without legalised guns because the risk of getting a bullet in your face is much smaller in general. Like almost zero. We don't need gun self defense because most of our assailants don't have any. Hunting is another argument with zero weight. We can have airguns here in Holland for sport, we just can't use them for anything else or carry them around wherever we go, there's a big difference. I've got nothing against guns or bows or using weapons as a sport (as long as it's within bounds, fuck hunting.) It's the outside of that usage that I care about, and you don't need an ancient law for that.