Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Straw man argument, along with false dichotomy....Perfection cannot ever be an option.How effective was the NCIS system at Fort Hood, Aurora, Sandy Hook and/or Clackamas Town Center Mall?..How effective is it in the gangland zones in NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, etcetera?
I mean besides not at all.
It goes back to the same old thing - is anything 100% effective? If that is a requirement why have ANY laws...........at all? Why outlaw anything?
Q: How did background checks do anything to stop, or even impede, the most heinous murder sprees that bedwetting lolberals shriek about?
A: They didn't...Not in any way, shape or manner.
Conclusion: Background checks are ineffective.
Then turn your rep back on, you fucking coward.I thought you told me how the law affected your weapons and magazines.
I don't care if you get thanks and rep on a site dominated by lunatics. The grey box thing, I'm not sure of.
If you can't post where I said anything about banning guns, then you are a liar and admitting it by not posting it.
I want renewable registration with background checks and periodic ballistics tests. With that, I don't really care if they ban a type of gun or not, but they could place some as Title II and not ban them. That's up to the people living in that area to make the laws that benefit them. My system is better than the present Title II weapons system. All I want is to discourage people shooting others with guns and making sure the guns are in the control of the owner. I don't give a fuck if you have 20 guns under those circumstances, as long as they are registered and watched to keep them out of the wrong hands. If the weapon is reported stolen and shows up in the future, I want it returned to the owner.
There was a guy here a couple days ago who has 22 guns and many are passed down from generations, like a couple Winchester Model 1873 rifles. He was telling me about his .300 Winchester Magnum and hunting elk from a helicopter. My brother probably has that many and nearly all are assault weapons. The point is as long as someone isn't purchasing and giving those weapons to criminals, it isn't important if they like to shoot them.
What's going to happen to those people when you gun nutters continue to be unreasonable and the states stick it up your ass? Your stupidity is going to hurt those law abiding citizens who don't mind being responsible and want the guns taken out of the hands of criminals and gangs. There are benefits to gun owners for registration of firearms. If the weapon is stolen, there is a system to return it. It's a benefit to not have guns in the hands of criminals and to discourage someone stealing weapons by shutting down the market for stolen weapons. When a person won't tranfer the registration, you know the gun is stolen. When having an unregistered weapon is a serious offense, people aren't going to want to buy them.
You gun nutters are just like a bunch of kids who screw it up for everybody.
Did I not already point out that I am not stupid enough to cooperate with your attempt to change the subject? Do you think adding more words to your attempt to obfuscate the issue will confuse me?
You are the one that wants to ban assault weapons, which, if I am not mistaken, are guns. You also want to track every gun in existence in this country in the deluded belief that it will prevent gun violence. When I point out a real world example of the a country that actually bans assault weapons, and restricts the transfer of other weapons, and also has a complete registry of every gun that is legally owned, and show that the result is an increase in gun violence, you pretend I am accusing you of posting something else.
Stick to the actual topic here, which is the evidence that, in your words, plan to sensibly restrict guns to reduce gun violence does not work.
You point out a country that has 35 homicides by gun when we have over 11,000 that year. You use a vague description of what a gun crime is in the UK and compare it to a country with more than that many homicides by guns. What about the people who were shot in America and didn't die?
Your day is done, so deal with it! We don't buy your crap.
You couldnt fight your way out of a paper bag. All air no wind.
I was trained for war, were you? It isn't me running my mouth about taking on the government and it's only me telling you that you have more to worry about than those black helicopters. As long as I'm alive, you right-wing scum are not taking over this country and I'm old enough to not have much to lose. I'd shoot you down like dogs, if you ever stood up against America.
Go to the polls like a loser should and leave the rest to us! Don't ever delude yourself into thinking people who swore an oath of allegience will support you.
You were trained for war?
Why do I doubt that? No one that trains anyone for war would ever say that the tip of a bullet quivers.
Umm, what? Can you tell me how they can penetrate without hitting something? The claim was that the tip would quiver? Who made that claim? Did the same guy also send you after a left handed monkey wrench?
What actually happens is that, because the tip is denser than the end, the tip will decelerate then it strikes something and the rear will continue forward. This results in deformation of the round, which causes the round to tumble. This happens as soon as it hits anything.
Modern military rounds are not made this way, and civilian rounds have never been made this way. The only reason we are discussing this at all is you insist on declaring yourself an expert on everything, yet you are being schooled by a guy who joined the Navy so he wouldn't have to shoot a weapon because he know he can't hit the broad side of a barn.
I've shot things with military rounds and the bullet didn't deform. I told you the quivering was what they told us about the bullets back then and it was generally accepted information.
I have a feeling the only military experience you have is as Master Chief when playing Halo.
Bullshit.Straw man argument, along with false dichotomy....Perfection cannot ever be an option.It goes back to the same old thing - is anything 100% effective? If that is a requirement why have ANY laws...........at all? Why outlaw anything?
Q: How did background checks do anything to stop, or even impede, the most heinous murder sprees that bedwetting lolberals shriek about?
A: They didn't...Not in any way, shape or manner.
Conclusion: Background checks are ineffective.
False logic.
How can you prove how many potential crime sprees were averted due to a background check? You can't because they didn't happen. The only thing you can do is look at correlating crime rates.
Trends schmends...Background checks haven't stopped the high profile massacres any more than they've slowed down the drip, drip, drip of inner city gangland shootings...Criminals don't give a shit...Never have, never will.Despite your claim - you ARE demanding perfection for this one issue by the very fact that you are pointing instances where it didn't prevent a crime - specific instances, not overall trends.
So, as to the first sentence, it sounds as if you are saying laws to punish criminals (as opposed to prevent criminals) are sufficient. How does that make sense?
Claiming that it only adds restrictions to the law abiding is false - it doesn't. In any regulation or law - it is always going to be the law abiding that bears the brunt of it but in the process a certain number of criminals will be stopped.
Punishing acts and not possibilities is the foundation our legal system is built on, crime prevention is for the sociologist, punishment of crime is for our legal system. When you start guarding against possibilities where does it end, do you really want the whole country to have the nanny government of NYC where the dictate behavior down to salt intake and soda size. That's not a country I want to live in. What it all boils down to, there is a price to be paid for freedom and it's been paid since our founding in blood and treasure, we can try to minimize the cost, but it will always be there. Bad people are always going to be out there and they will get their occasional victories and sometimes the only thing we can do is respond appropriately when that time comes, we will never be able to stop them all. But we have to examine what price we are willing to pay to try to avoid the inevitable.
How is a background check punishing "possibilities"? For example - it is illegal for felons to have guns along with certain other groups of people. Such a person attempting to purchase a gun is commiting an act not a possiblity. How can a seller know this without a background check?
Then they would start making them, as I said before.
If you had a brain you would know criminals aren't going to make their own guns and gang bang. The penalty for having a homemade gun are much worse than having a real one and the cops will profile people to remove guns from their streets. The cops will use stats and focus on that area, searching people every day.
Most homicides aren't planned in advance.
Why is the penalty for a homemade gun higher than having a non homemade gun?
Cops in cities have been targeting dope dealers for decades and still I could still lay my mitts on an ounce of coke or heroin, a bottle full of 'scrip pain killers and/or a pound of weed with no more than a few phone calls.....A few "clean" firearms wouldn't be no thang.
You are truly one stupid mothafuckah.
Cut off the dope dealers supply at the source and see how fast the dope is off the streets.
Can't you idiots figure out America will not listen to you anymore? Your day is done, so deal with it! Don't come crying to me, so bend over like the man you are and take it! Think of it as just overtime in your bathhouse job.
So how are you going to restrict the supply of steel, lead and brass ingots?
I've shot a lot of military rounds and they will penetrate straight until they hit something. The claim was the tip would quiver as it went through the air. Unless it penetrated something uniform, it would start to tumble.
Umm, what? Can you tell me how they can penetrate without hitting something? The claim was that the tip would quiver? Who made that claim? Did the same guy also send you after a left handed monkey wrench?
What actually happens is that, because the tip is denser than the end, the tip will decelerate then it strikes something and the rear will continue forward. This results in deformation of the round, which causes the round to tumble. This happens as soon as it hits anything.
Modern military rounds are not made this way, and civilian rounds have never been made this way. The only reason we are discussing this at all is you insist on declaring yourself an expert on everything, yet you are being schooled by a guy who joined the Navy so he wouldn't have to shoot a weapon because he know he can't hit the broad side of a barn.
I've shot things with military rounds and the bullet didn't deform. I told you the quivering was what they told us about the bullets back then and it was generally accepted information.
Umm, what? Can you tell me how they can penetrate without hitting something? The claim was that the tip would quiver? Who made that claim? Did the same guy also send you after a left handed monkey wrench?
What actually happens is that, because the tip is denser than the end, the tip will decelerate then it strikes something and the rear will continue forward. This results in deformation of the round, which causes the round to tumble. This happens as soon as it hits anything.
Modern military rounds are not made this way, and civilian rounds have never been made this way. The only reason we are discussing this at all is you insist on declaring yourself an expert on everything, yet you are being schooled by a guy who joined the Navy so he wouldn't have to shoot a weapon because he know he can't hit the broad side of a barn.
I've shot things with military rounds and the bullet didn't deform. I told you the quivering was what they told us about the bullets back then and it was generally accepted information.
I have a feeling the only military experience you have is as Master Chief when playing Halo.
Bullshit.Straw man argument, along with false dichotomy....Perfection cannot ever be an option.
Q: How did background checks do anything to stop, or even impede, the most heinous murder sprees that bedwetting lolberals shriek about?
A: They didn't...Not in any way, shape or manner.
Conclusion: Background checks are ineffective.
False logic.
How can you prove how many potential crime sprees were averted due to a background check? You can't because they didn't happen. The only thing you can do is look at correlating crime rates.
You don't prove positive results with negative evidence.
Trends schmends...Background checks haven't stopped the high profile massacres any more than they've slowed down the drip, drip, drip of inner city gangland shootings...Criminals don't give a shit...Never have, never will.Despite your claim - you ARE demanding perfection for this one issue by the very fact that you are pointing instances where it didn't prevent a crime - specific instances, not overall trends.
Cops in cities have been targeting dope dealers for decades and still I could still lay my mitts on an ounce of coke or heroin, a bottle full of 'scrip pain killers and/or a pound of weed with no more than a few phone calls.....A few "clean" firearms wouldn't be no thang.Cops in cities target areas and people to remove guns from the streets and that is a battle that has proven it can be won. If they search enough people, they're going to find a gun and with the supply halting, the guns that were on the streets will dry up.
Your mindless, NRA gun nutter, "keep the status quo" objections are never going to convince rational people that nothing can be done and guess what, you're ran out of fools to buy that bullshit!
You are truly one stupid mothafuckah.
Cut off the dope dealers supply at the source and see how fast the dope is off the streets.
Can't you idiots figure out America will not listen to you anymore? Your day is done, so deal with it! Don't come crying to me, so bend over like the man you are and take it! Think of it as just overtime in your bathhouse job.
You've never shot anything but your big mouth, dickless.I've shot things with military rounds and the bullet didn't deform. I told you the quivering was what they told us about the bullets back then and it was generally accepted information.
I figure you could get participating gun shops to fire the weapon for ballistics tests and send the bullets to the FBI to be quick scanned and put in a data base. The only thing the gun store owner would have to do is check the serial number and renew the registration, so a minor fee would cover the whole procedure, even with many firearms. The bullets could be boxed individually with the necessary information and sent periodically. The system to renew would be staggered throughout the year to prevent a rush.
The renewable registration proves the weapon is still in the hands of the owner so the firearm can't go elsewhere unless stolen. The registration is transferred when sold, starting from the time of manufacture, meaning all guns are registered, the guns in the gun store, the guns in a police force and the military. The periodic ballistics tests discourage someone ever wanting to use the gun in a crime. The penalties of possessing an unregistered weapon are severe, so the market for buying a stolen weapon dries up and burglars aren't going to want to fool with them. Someone repeatedly buying weapons and not renewing them without good reason would signal a straw purchase.
As far as the fee, consider it insurance and the added safety that you won't need that weapon to protect you from home invasion with criminals having weapons. Under the system if your weapons are stolen, a data base exists for them to be returned to you. Even a very minimal fee is enough to encourage a gunshop to get involved in ballistics testing and renewing the registration. How long does it take to fire a gun and package the bullet? How long does it take to check a serial number against a registration? There would also be a market for confiscated unregistered firearms away from cities, so gun shops and the public could profit from that. Gun shows could set up waiting periods by shipping their sold merchantise to these local participating gun stores to be picked up after the waiting (cooling off) period.
Once the remaining unregistered weapons are removed, criminals would be fearful to use a weapon that can be traced back to them. Consider a case involving a homicide from a stolen weapon and the police trace the gun in the crime to a burglary of firearms! Maybe the cops have a variety of possible suspects and show the pictures to the person who was burglarized and he says, "sure, I know that guy and he's been here seeing my guns.? Case closed! There are many ways even a stolen weapons can lead to an arrest.
Ever hear of the 5th Amendment?
Tell that to the cop!
So, as to the first sentence, it sounds as if you are saying laws to punish criminals (as opposed to prevent criminals) are sufficient. How does that make sense?
Claiming that it only adds restrictions to the law abiding is false - it doesn't. In any regulation or law - it is always going to be the law abiding that bears the brunt of it but in the process a certain number of criminals will be stopped.
Can you point out what laws prevent crimes? Until you do nothing you said makes sense.
For example, curfew laws are designed to prevent crimes. Another example would be laws regarding food handling and disease, which would prevent incidents like Typhoid Mary.
i agree - that is why i stated: Though i suspect the reduction is do to multiple factors, not any one thing - it is hard to prove direct correlation on anything as complex as this.
they did happen despite background checks but again, two points: Nothing is perfect and the argument that because it doesn't prevent any instance means it's a failure is fallacious. How many criminals might not bother getting a gun if they have to submit to a background check? Some might go underground, some might be disuaded.
What palpable evidence is there that background checks helps criminals? That's quite a claim.
it did? My understanding is that background checks, with the fbi's nics, began in 1998.
The Brady law was passed in 1993. They had background checks before that point, just not nationwide.
But were they as effective and extensive as NICS?
I was aware of that, in fact, wouldn't that also prevent the keeping of a national registry?By the way, nationwide background checks mandated by the federal government were ruled unconstitutional.
So, as to the first sentence, it sounds as if you are saying laws to punish criminals (as opposed to prevent criminals) are sufficient. How does that make sense?
Claiming that it only adds restrictions to the law abiding is false - it doesn't. In any regulation or law - it is always going to be the law abiding that bears the brunt of it but in the process a certain number of criminals will be stopped.
Punishing acts and not possibilities is the foundation our legal system is built on, crime prevention is for the sociologist, punishment of crime is for our legal system. When you start guarding against possibilities where does it end, do you really want the whole country to have the nanny government of NYC where the dictate behavior down to salt intake and soda size. That's not a country I want to live in. What it all boils down to, there is a price to be paid for freedom and it's been paid since our founding in blood and treasure, we can try to minimize the cost, but it will always be there. Bad people are always going to be out there and they will get their occasional victories and sometimes the only thing we can do is respond appropriately when that time comes, we will never be able to stop them all. But we have to examine what price we are willing to pay to try to avoid the inevitable.
How is a background check punishing "possibilities"? For example - it is illegal for felons to have guns along with certain other groups of people. Such a person attempting to purchase a gun is commiting an act not a possiblity. How can a seller know this without a background check?
I was trained for war, were you? It isn't me running my mouth about taking on the government and it's only me telling you that you have more to worry about than those black helicopters. As long as I'm alive, you right-wing scum are not taking over this country and I'm old enough to not have much to lose. I'd shoot you down like dogs, if you ever stood up against America.
Go to the polls like a loser should and leave the rest to us! Don't ever delude yourself into thinking people who swore an oath of allegience will support you.
You were trained for war?
Why do I doubt that? No one that trains anyone for war would ever say that the tip of a bullet quivers.
That's what they claimed and my guess would be a sonic quiver.
You further expose your rank ignorance and stupidity.If you had a brain you would know criminals aren't going to make their own guns and gang bang. The penalty for having a homemade gun are much worse than having a real one and the cops will profile people to remove guns from their streets. The cops will use stats and focus on that area, searching people every day.
Most homicides aren't planned in advance.
Why is the penalty for a homemade gun higher than having a non homemade gun?
They have different intents. I image a homemade rifle wouldn't get heat, but it would be rather dangerous to shoot.
