Gun Control? Lesson Learned

[Timmy]

Mass law is pretty strict . But once you get your license it's pretty liberal gun law. The idea is to try to stop the kooks and criminals at the start . And they want to make sure guns arent sold to the wrong guys .

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So, what have we learned today?

1. You want gun control, but not for your kind just criminals and bad guys like ISIS, but you say gun control doesn't work so why would you want it?
2. That would mean somebody would have to figure out #1 but you don't want the government to do that since you might just be #1.
3. As long as there are guns you want guns but as long as there are nukes you don't want Iran-types to have nukes or guns. (I guess they aren't for protection after all).
4. A _______ weapon is the great equalizer but that's true only if the other guy doesn't actually have one. If he does you have no advantage and are probably at a disadvantage.
5. We only get to count criminals and terrorists who use guns, not the nice normal guy (without a criminal record) who just killed his wife or blew his own head off.

In sum, gun control not for my kind but those other guys because they are either fucking crazy and fucking dangerous but as long as they have guns I have to have guns and even if they don't have guns I still have to have guns because otherwise I'd be at a disadvantage.


Did I miss anything?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I accept "Queen of Many Venues"....but will be pleased to accept 'Queen of Arms Control' as well.

As for my qualifications in that area?
Common sense.

Common sense is to say my nation is worthy of nuclear weapons but you are not? Doesn't Iran feel the very same way? After all, we are the only nation to ever use them as weapons of terror. That's hypocrisy, of a nuclear order...

No, you dolt.
Common sense is to deny any nation that threatens to wipe another our access to nuclear weapons.....

....exactly what the supreme liar, Barack Hussein Obama, (the most merciful) promised.



Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon

I disagree with Obama, and agree with your logic. If they have a gun, you need a gun, if you have a nuke, they need a nuke. Fair is fair, correct?

Just because your neighbor is a big scary guy, does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to own what you do? Who decides that, you? And how very convenient, for you that is...

State Sponsors of Terrorism




Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are three countries designated under these authorities: Iran, Sudan, and Syria.

Country Designation Date
Iran January 19, 1984
Sudan August 12, 1993
Syria December 29, 1979
State Sponsors of Terrorism

For clarity....are you in favor of nuclear weapons in the hands of any of these three?

Question for ya, what does Iran's Terrorist List look like? I bet we are near the top eh?

And, using your logic, if we have a nuke then they need a nuke. As long as any nation has a nuke, all nations needs a nuke. See how that works?

How about you answer the question.

Don't be afraid.....my opinion of you can't possibly go any lower.

The United States Department of State posted this:
Country Designation Date
Iran January 19, 1984
Sudan August 12, 1993
Syria December 29, 1979
State Sponsors of Terrorism


Do you have a problem with any of those having nuclear weapons?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Common sense is to say my nation is worthy of nuclear weapons but you are not? Doesn't Iran feel the very same way? After all, we are the only nation to ever use them as weapons of terror. That's hypocrisy, of a nuclear order...

No, you dolt.
Common sense is to deny any nation that threatens to wipe another our access to nuclear weapons.....

....exactly what the supreme liar, Barack Hussein Obama, (the most merciful) promised.



Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon

I disagree with Obama, and agree with your logic. If they have a gun, you need a gun, if you have a nuke, they need a nuke. Fair is fair, correct?

Just because your neighbor is a big scary guy, does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to own what you do? Who decides that, you? And how very convenient, for you that is...

State Sponsors of Terrorism




Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are three countries designated under these authorities: Iran, Sudan, and Syria.

Country Designation Date
Iran January 19, 1984
Sudan August 12, 1993
Syria December 29, 1979
State Sponsors of Terrorism

For clarity....are you in favor of nuclear weapons in the hands of any of these three?

Question for ya, what does Iran's Terrorist List look like? I bet we are near the top eh?

And, using your logic, if we have a nuke then they need a nuke. As long as any nation has a nuke, all nations needs a nuke. See how that works?

How about you answer the question.

Don't be afraid.....my opinion of you can't possibly go any lower.

The United States Department of State posted this:
Country Designation Date
Iran January 19, 1984
Sudan August 12, 1993
Syria December 29, 1979
State Sponsors of Terrorism


Do you have a problem with any of those having nuclear weapons?

When you start answering my questions, I will.

But, to get you started, no I do not have a problem with any nation having nuclear weapons. We didn't ask permission, nor Israel, nor the UK and I see no reason why anyone else has to eh? Fair play. Don't like it then make a deal for no one to have them.

The logic is yours. We have nukes so they need nukes. Case closed.


And this terror attack? That's wasn't Iran, Sweetcheeks, that was us...

 

[PoliticalChic]

An investigation of your knowledge.

Now....don't take this personally....but are you copacetic with a paranoid schizophrenic having the right to a gun?

As you have endorsed Iran having nuclear weapons, it is clear that you are unaware of that characteristic in Iran's leadership: paranoid schizophrenics


I know I should be paid for the lessons I provide to you..but a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to teach a fascist.....er, a Liberal.

So.....know this: Iran's government not only believes that their leader, the mahdi, has been hiding in a well for several hundred years.....but it will require a world war to bring him out.
True story.



"...the 12th Imam is held by devout Shi'ite Muslims to be a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed who went into "occlusion" in the ninth century at the age of five and hasn't been seen since.

The Hidden Imam, as he is also known by his followers, will only return after a period of cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed – what Christians call the Apocalypse – and then lead the world into an era of universal peace.


Rumours abound of Mr Ahmadinejad's devotion to the 12th Imam, and last year it was reported that he had persuaded his cabinet to sign a "contract" pledging themselves to work for his return.

Another example of his messianic tendencies surfaced after 108 people were killed in an aircraft crash in Teheran. Mr Ahmadinejad praised the victims, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow."


For many of the hundreds of delegates who attended Mr Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN this week, his discourse on the merits of the 12th Imam finally brought home the reality of the danger his regime poses to world peace.

Rather than allaying concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions, Mr Ahmadinejad spoke at length about how a Muslim saviour would relieve the world's suffering.

The era of Western predominance was drawing to a close, he said, and would soon be replaced by a "bright future" ushered in by the 12th Imam's return. "Without any doubt, the Promised One, who is the ultimate Saviour, will come. The pleasing aroma of justice will permeate the whole world."


The really alarming aspect is that – if the world's leading intelligence agencies are to be believed – he is seriously attempting to acquire a nuclear weapons arsenal.
Will the 12th Imam cause war with Iran?


You'd have to an imbecile to give nuclear weapons to this bunch.
Raise your paw.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You'd have to an imbecile to give nuclear weapons to this bunch.
Raise your paw.

I don't have to "give" them anything. It is their right, as a nation, to build them, like it or not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You'd have to an imbecile to give nuclear weapons to this bunch.
Raise your paw.

I don't have to "give" them anything. It is their right, as a nation, to build them, like it or not.

Only if you imagine that it is the right of a paranoid schizophrenic to legally own a gun.

And...btw....Obama "gave" them access to same, and funds with which to keep their nuclear weapons laboratory going.



Here's more you don't know.....their nuclear laboratory is known as North Korea.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You'd have to an imbecile to give nuclear weapons to this bunch.
Raise your paw.

I don't have to "give" them anything. It is their right, as a nation, to build them, like it or not.

Oh...and as per post #125, you are self-identified as an imbecile.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You'd have to an imbecile to give nuclear weapons to this bunch.
Raise your paw.

I don't have to "give" them anything. It is their right, as a nation, to build them, like it or not.

Only if you imagine that it is the right of a paranoid schizophrenic to legally own a gun.

And...btw....Obama "gave" them access to same, and funds with which to keep their nuclear weapons laboratory going.



Here's more you don't know.....their nuclear laboratory is known as North Korea.

I don't care if it's Ralph's Discount Nukes, none of your damn business.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Only if you imagine that it is the right of a paranoid schizophrenic to legally own a gun.

It most likely is...

 

[2aguy]

[


No...you are implying that all people who use a gun for a crime were law abiding just before they used the gun...and that is not true or accurate. Those who use guns to commit crime, as actual research shows, are majority criminals with long histories of crime and violence.

That should make people wonder why the gun nuts feel it's so important to keep the loopholes open in the background check laws.

Criminals don't get background checks...they get their guns illegally and just ignore background check laws.....

So what. People ignore the speed limit. Is that an argument for not having speed limit laws?

Again with that same stupid point which you must think is clever...b cause you anti gun morons keep making it............


The speed limit doesn't stop them from speeding...it allows you to arrest them when they break it.

You morons believe that background checks will actually prevent the crime...like thinking a speed limit will stop a criminal from breaking it.....

Current gun laws work...w.hen you commit a crime you are arrested...if you use a gun illegally, you are arrested...if you own or carry a gun as a felon...you are arrested.....

Let's see, you don't want criminals (or crazy people) to have guns, but you haven't told us how the government is supposed to figure that out? Do they use one of these?

It's easy...you guys just don't like the answer because it leaves normal gun owners alone. We have laws on the books....if someone commits a crime with a gun....you arrest them. If you find a felon owning, carrying, buying, or selling a gun...you arrest them.

we can do this with existing laws...it does not target normal gun owners and police use normal police techniques to accomplish it........and each time you catch a criminal all you have to do is lock them up.....

But you guys don't like this because that leaves all those legal guns in the hands of normal people...and that just irritates the shit out of you.......so now you want universal background checks...because that gives you the excuse for gun registration..which allows you to ban or confiscate as you get political muscle........

 

[NYcarbineer]

That should make people wonder why the gun nuts feel it's so important to keep the loopholes open in the background check laws.

Criminals don't get background checks...they get their guns illegally and just ignore background check laws.....

So what. People ignore the speed limit. Is that an argument for not having speed limit laws?

Again with that same stupid point which you must think is clever...b cause you anti gun morons keep making it............


The speed limit doesn't stop them from speeding...it allows you to arrest them when they break it.

You morons believe that background checks will actually prevent the crime...like thinking a speed limit will stop a criminal from breaking it.....

Current gun laws work...w.hen you commit a crime you are arrested...if you use a gun illegally, you are arrested...if you own or carry a gun as a felon...you are arrested.....

Let's see, you don't want criminals (or crazy people) to have guns, but you haven't told us how the government is supposed to figure that out? Do they use one of these?

It's easy...you guys just don't like the answer because it leaves normal gun owners alone. We have laws on the books....if someone commits a crime with a gun....you arrest them. If you find a felon owning, carrying, buying, or selling a gun...you arrest them.

we can do this with existing laws...it does not target normal gun owners and police use normal police techniques to accomplish it........and each time you catch a criminal all you have to do is lock them up.....

But you guys don't like this because that leaves all those legal guns in the hands of normal people...and that just irritates the shit out of you.......so now you want universal background checks...because that gives you the excuse for gun registration..which allows you to ban or confiscate as you get political muscle........

But we can't arrest the guy who sold the felon the gun in a private sale that didn't require a background check.

 

[2aguy]

[


No...you are implying that all people who use a gun for a crime were law abiding just before they used the gun...and that is not true or accurate. Those who use guns to commit crime, as actual research shows, are majority criminals with long histories of crime and violence.

That should make people wonder why the gun nuts feel it's so important to keep the loopholes open in the background check laws.

Criminals don't get background checks...they get their guns illegally and just ignore background check laws.....

So what. People ignore the speed limit. Is that an argument for not having speed limit laws?

Again with that same stupid point which you must think is clever...b cause you anti gun morons keep making it............


The speed limit doesn't stop them from speeding...it allows you to arrest them when they break it.

You morons believe that background checks will actually prevent the crime...like thinking a speed limit will stop a criminal from breaking it.....

Current gun laws work...w.hen you commit a crime you are arrested...if you use a gun illegally, you are arrested...if you own or carry a gun as a felon...you are arrested.....

So you support ending background checks altogether.

As I keep saying....if you guys will let people go into a gun store with a drivers license or other state i.d.....hand it to the clerk, they punch you name in the system and they get a pass/fail with no record keeping...you can keep your current background checks.......though it does nothing to stop criminals from getting guns...or mass shooters for that matter.....


I am trying to compromise with you nuts.

 

[2aguy]

Criminals don't get background checks...they get their guns illegally and just ignore background check laws.....

So what. People ignore the speed limit. Is that an argument for not having speed limit laws?

Again with that same stupid point which you must think is clever...b cause you anti gun morons keep making it............


The speed limit doesn't stop them from speeding...it allows you to arrest them when they break it.

You morons believe that background checks will actually prevent the crime...like thinking a speed limit will stop a criminal from breaking it.....

Current gun laws work...w.hen you commit a crime you are arrested...if you use a gun illegally, you are arrested...if you own or carry a gun as a felon...you are arrested.....

Let's see, you don't want criminals (or crazy people) to have guns, but you haven't told us how the government is supposed to figure that out? Do they use one of these?

It's easy...you guys just don't like the answer because it leaves normal gun owners alone. We have laws on the books....if someone commits a crime with a gun....you arrest them. If you find a felon owning, carrying, buying, or selling a gun...you arrest them.

we can do this with existing laws...it does not target normal gun owners and police use normal police techniques to accomplish it........and each time you catch a criminal all you have to do is lock them up.....

But you guys don't like this because that leaves all those legal guns in the hands of normal people...and that just irritates the shit out of you.......so now you want universal background checks...because that gives you the excuse for gun registration..which allows you to ban or confiscate as you get political muscle........

But we can't arrest the guy who sold the felon the gun in a private sale that didn't require a background check.

You don't have to...if the guy is a regular supplier...using current police techniqus like they do for illegal drugs....you get a snitch and make an undercover buy...and you get him.......this way normal gun owners are not targeted... I know...that is your whole point...you want normal people caught up in your laws so you can punish them....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That should make people wonder why the gun nuts feel it's so important to keep the loopholes open in the background check laws.

Criminals don't get background checks...they get their guns illegally and just ignore background check laws.....

So what. People ignore the speed limit. Is that an argument for not having speed limit laws?

Again with that same stupid point which you must think is clever...b cause you anti gun morons keep making it............


The speed limit doesn't stop them from speeding...it allows you to arrest them when they break it.

You morons believe that background checks will actually prevent the crime...like thinking a speed limit will stop a criminal from breaking it.....

Current gun laws work...w.hen you commit a crime you are arrested...if you use a gun illegally, you are arrested...if you own or carry a gun as a felon...you are arrested.....

Let's see, you don't want criminals (or crazy people) to have guns, but you haven't told us how the government is supposed to figure that out? Do they use one of these?

It's easy...you guys just don't like the answer because it leaves normal gun owners alone. We have laws on the books....if someone commits a crime with a gun....you arrest them. If you find a felon owning, carrying, buying, or selling a gun...you arrest them.

we can do this with existing laws...it does not target normal gun owners and police use normal police techniques to accomplish it........and each time you catch a criminal all you have to do is lock them up.....

But you guys don't like this because that leaves all those legal guns in the hands of normal people...and that just irritates the shit out of you.......so now you want universal background checks...because that gives you the excuse for gun registration..which allows you to ban or confiscate as you get political muscle........

If it was purely political Hillary would be shooting at beer cans, after she chugged them.

 

[2aguy]

Your premise is not true, factual or based in reality.

Oh, but it is:

Yes...this chart is a lie......it hides the truth and attacks the united states......here is a real chart and the real way to do it..forgive the length...the truth, facts and reality can sometimes take time to put out there.....lies fly around the world and all that....

The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries

Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so. They never acknowledge that when factors beyond per capita GDP are considered, it makes little sense to claim Sweden should be compared to the US, but not Argentina. Such assertions ignore immense differences in culture, size, politics, history, demographics, or ethnic diversity. Comparisons with mono-ethnic Asian countries like Japan and Korea make even less sense.

But for an illustration of where this sort of thinking leads, let's look at this Washington Post article titled “The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country.”

After mistakenly using the "gun related" killings rate instead of the murder rate (see below) the author, Max Fisher, carefully construct his comparisons so as to emphasize the gun deaths rate (which is implied to be as good as the murder rate) in the US.

As usual, no reason is given as to why the US should only be compared to “developed” countries, but then Fisher proceeds to add a few non-traditional comparisons to drive home the point as to how violent the US truly is, in his view.

Fisher adds Bulgaria, Turkey, and Chile, which are middle-income countries. And that lets him make this graph:



Why Turkey and Chile and Bulgaria? Well, those countries are OECD members, and many who use the "developed country" moniker often use the OECD members countries as a de facto list of the "true" developed countries. Of course, membership in the OECD is highly political and hardly based on any objective economic or cultural criteria.

But if you're familiar with the OECD, you'll immediately notice a problem with the list Fisher uses. Mexico is an OECD country. So why is Mexico not in this graph? Well, it's pretty apparent that Mexico was left off the list because to do so would interfere with the point Fisher is trying to make. After all, Mexico — in spite of much more restrictive gun laws — has a murder rate many times larger than the US.

But Fisher has what he thinks is a good excuse for his manipulation here. According to Fisher, the omission is because Mexico “has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war.”

Oh, so every country that has drug war deaths is exempt? Well, then I guess we have to remove the US from the list.

But, of course, the US for some mysterious reason must remain on the list, so, by “developed” country, Fisherreally means “ a country that’s on the OECD list minus any country with a higher murder rate than the US.”

At this point, we're reminded that Fisher (and no one else I’ve ever seen) has made a case for what special magic it is that makes the OECD list the one list of countries to which the US shall be compared.

More Realistic Comparisons Involve a Broader View of the World

Why not use the UN’s human development index instead? That would seem to make at least as much sense if we’re devoted to looking at “developed countries.”

So, let’s do that. Here we see that the OECD’s list contains Turkey, Bulgaria, Mexico, and Chile. So, if we're honest with ourselves, that must mean that other countries with similar human development rankings are also suitable for comparisons to the US.

Well, Turkey and Mexico have HDI numbers at .75. So, let’s include other countries with HDI numbers either similar or higher. That means we should include The Bahamas, Argentina, Costa Rica, Cuba, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela, Russia, Lithuania, Belarus, Estonia, and Latvia.

You can see where this is going. If we include countries that have HDI numbers similar to — or at least as high as — OECD members Turkey and Mexico, we find that the picture for the United States murder rate looks very different (correctly using murder rates and not gun-deaths rates):

Wow, that US sure has a pretty low murder rate compared to all those countries that are comparable to some OECD members. In fact, Russia, Costa Rica and Lithuania have all been invited to begin the process of joining the OECD (Russia is on hold for obvious political reasons). But all those countries have higher murder rates than the US. (I wonder what excuse Fisher will manufacture for leaving off those countries after they join the OECD.)

 

[2aguy]

Criminals don't get background checks...they get their guns illegally and just ignore background check laws.....

So what. People ignore the speed limit. Is that an argument for not having speed limit laws?

Again with that same stupid point which you must think is clever...b cause you anti gun morons keep making it............


The speed limit doesn't stop them from speeding...it allows you to arrest them when they break it.

You morons believe that background checks will actually prevent the crime...like thinking a speed limit will stop a criminal from breaking it.....

Current gun laws work...w.hen you commit a crime you are arrested...if you use a gun illegally, you are arrested...if you own or carry a gun as a felon...you are arrested.....

Let's see, you don't want criminals (or crazy people) to have guns, but you haven't told us how the government is supposed to figure that out? Do they use one of these?

It's easy...you guys just don't like the answer because it leaves normal gun owners alone. We have laws on the books....if someone commits a crime with a gun....you arrest them. If you find a felon owning, carrying, buying, or selling a gun...you arrest them.

we can do this with existing laws...it does not target normal gun owners and police use normal police techniques to accomplish it........and each time you catch a criminal all you have to do is lock them up.....

But you guys don't like this because that leaves all those legal guns in the hands of normal people...and that just irritates the shit out of you.......so now you want universal background checks...because that gives you the excuse for gun registration..which allows you to ban or confiscate as you get political muscle........

If it was purely political Hillary would be shooting at beer cans, after she chugged them.

It isn't political....it is phobic....you guys, and hilary hate guns....well, except for the guns you use.....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Criminals don't get background checks...they get their guns illegally and just ignore background check laws.....

So what. People ignore the speed limit. Is that an argument for not having speed limit laws?

Again with that same stupid point which you must think is clever...b cause you anti gun morons keep making it............


The speed limit doesn't stop them from speeding...it allows you to arrest them when they break it.

You morons believe that background checks will actually prevent the crime...like thinking a speed limit will stop a criminal from breaking it.....

Current gun laws work...w.hen you commit a crime you are arrested...if you use a gun illegally, you are arrested...if you own or carry a gun as a felon...you are arrested.....

Let's see, you don't want criminals (or crazy people) to have guns, but you haven't told us how the government is supposed to figure that out? Do they use one of these?

It's easy...you guys just don't like the answer because it leaves normal gun owners alone. We have laws on the books....if someone commits a crime with a gun....you arrest them. If you find a felon owning, carrying, buying, or selling a gun...you arrest them.

we can do this with existing laws...it does not target normal gun owners and police use normal police techniques to accomplish it........and each time you catch a criminal all you have to do is lock them up.....

But you guys don't like this because that leaves all those legal guns in the hands of normal people...and that just irritates the shit out of you.......so now you want universal background checks...because that gives you the excuse for gun registration..which allows you to ban or confiscate as you get political muscle........

But we can't arrest the guy who sold the felon the gun in a private sale that didn't require a background check.

He's protected by the, Well he seemed okay to me defense.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So what. People ignore the speed limit. Is that an argument for not having speed limit laws?

Again with that same stupid point which you must think is clever...b cause you anti gun morons keep making it............


The speed limit doesn't stop them from speeding...it allows you to arrest them when they break it.

You morons believe that background checks will actually prevent the crime...like thinking a speed limit will stop a criminal from breaking it.....

Current gun laws work...w.hen you commit a crime you are arrested...if you use a gun illegally, you are arrested...if you own or carry a gun as a felon...you are arrested.....

Let's see, you don't want criminals (or crazy people) to have guns, but you haven't told us how the government is supposed to figure that out? Do they use one of these?

It's easy...you guys just don't like the answer because it leaves normal gun owners alone. We have laws on the books....if someone commits a crime with a gun....you arrest them. If you find a felon owning, carrying, buying, or selling a gun...you arrest them.

we can do this with existing laws...it does not target normal gun owners and police use normal police techniques to accomplish it........and each time you catch a criminal all you have to do is lock them up.....

But you guys don't like this because that leaves all those legal guns in the hands of normal people...and that just irritates the shit out of you.......so now you want universal background checks...because that gives you the excuse for gun registration..which allows you to ban or confiscate as you get political muscle........

If it was purely political Hillary would be shooting at beer cans, after she chugged them.

It isn't political....it is phobic....you guys, and hilary hate guns....well, except for the guns you use.....

Guess we don't hate guns then eh? Maybe just the damage they do...

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what. People ignore the speed limit. Is that an argument for not having speed limit laws?

Again with that same stupid point which you must think is clever...b cause you anti gun morons keep making it............


The speed limit doesn't stop them from speeding...it allows you to arrest them when they break it.

You morons believe that background checks will actually prevent the crime...like thinking a speed limit will stop a criminal from breaking it.....

Current gun laws work...w.hen you commit a crime you are arrested...if you use a gun illegally, you are arrested...if you own or carry a gun as a felon...you are arrested.....

Let's see, you don't want criminals (or crazy people) to have guns, but you haven't told us how the government is supposed to figure that out? Do they use one of these?

It's easy...you guys just don't like the answer because it leaves normal gun owners alone. We have laws on the books....if someone commits a crime with a gun....you arrest them. If you find a felon owning, carrying, buying, or selling a gun...you arrest them.

we can do this with existing laws...it does not target normal gun owners and police use normal police techniques to accomplish it........and each time you catch a criminal all you have to do is lock them up.....

But you guys don't like this because that leaves all those legal guns in the hands of normal people...and that just irritates the shit out of you.......so now you want universal background checks...because that gives you the excuse for gun registration..which allows you to ban or confiscate as you get political muscle........

But we can't arrest the guy who sold the felon the gun in a private sale that didn't require a background check.

You don't have to...if the guy is a regular supplier...using current police techniqus like they do for illegal drugs....you get a snitch and make an undercover buy...and you get him.......this way normal gun owners are not targeted... I know...that is your whole point...you want normal people caught up in your laws so you can punish them....

Yes you do because if selling a gun to a felon is a crime then it's got to be a crime for everyone.

If selling alcohol to a minor is a crime, then ANYONE who does it commits a crime.