Leaked Democrat Document Explains How to Use Tragedies to Push Gun Control

[Androidpk]

Not that we need leaked documents to know they actively exploit tragedies to push their agenda.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/leaked-democrat-document-explains-how-use-tragedies-push-gun-control

[Tgo01]

Well if Republicans would just quit their bitching and let the Democrats trample all over the second amendment then Democrats wouldn't need to exploit tragedies.

[waywardgs]

I'm thoroughly surprised. No, really. This is shocking. Truly shocking. I am shocked.

[Taernath]

Eh, like the article mentioned it goes both ways. And I think 'exploit' is a loaded word for what's going on. Are they just supposed to pretend mass shootings never happen?

[Androidpk]

It's not a loaded word, it is exactly what they are doing.

[Warriorbird]

Open carry advocates tend to do the opposite side of the coin. I'm not in favor of most legislation but I find both sides of it tacky. I know a lot of people didn't want to see people brandishing guns on or near campus after the Virginia Tech shootings.

[Androidpk]

Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about open carry. I'm completely okay with concealed carry however, though I think training and safety classes should be mandatory.

[Thondalar]

Eh, like the article mentioned it goes both ways. And I think 'exploit' is a loaded word for what's going on. Are they just supposed to pretend mass shootings never happen?

Nobody is suggesting we pretend they don't happen. I think the issue here is using these things that happen a very small percentage of the time to try to drive national opinion and national policy in an irresponsible manner. You're more likely to get bit by a shark or struck by lightning than get killed in a "mass shooting".

[Androidpk]

Nobody is suggesting we pretend they don't happen. I think the issue here is using these things that happen a very small percentage of the time to try to drive national opinion and national policy in an irresponsible manner. You're more likely to get bit by a shark or struck by lightning than get killed in a "mass shooting".

This. I'd rather see a push for improving mental health services.

[Taernath]

Nobody is suggesting we pretend they don't happen. I think the issue here is using these things that happen a very small percentage of the time to try to drive national opinion and national policy in an irresponsible manner. You're more likely to get bit by a shark or struck by lightning than get killed in a "mass shooting".

And both sides engage in it. It just seems silly to me to try and paint this as a purely liberal conspiracy to "exploit tragedies" and "push their agenda".

[Thondalar]

And both sides engage in it. It just seems silly to me to try and paint this as a purely liberal conspiracy to "exploit tragedies" and "push their agenda".

I'm normally the first person to use the "both sides do it, they're both garbage" line...hell, it's my bread and butter. Unfortunately I can't here. The left uses fear-mongering way more than the right. Think about it...they have gun violence, destroying the planet, letting the poor/sick/elderly suffer, evil corporations keeping you in poverty....what does the right have? Buy gold?

[waywardgs]

Anyone else remember Heston setting up camp right near that girl's funeral and shrieking "FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!!"?

[Taernath]

I'm normally the first person to use the "both sides do it, they're both garbage" line...hell, it's my bread and butter. Unfortunately I can't here. The left uses fear-mongering way more than the right. Think about it...they have gun violence, destroying the planet, letting the poor/sick/elderly suffer, evil corporations keeping you in poverty....what does the right have? Buy gold?

The whole 'Big Brother is coming to take your guns/freedom!' thing.

[kutter]

The whole 'Big Brother is coming to take your guns/freedom!' thing.

Based upon what is going on in Connecticut, I would not say that it is really all that reactionary.

[Warriorbird]

It happened for years before that and that is overblown compared to California or pre court case Chicago. It's why both sides annoy me.

[Parkbandit]

I'm normally the first person to use the "both sides do it, they're both garbage" line...hell, it's my bread and butter. Unfortunately I can't here. The left uses fear-mongering way more than the right. Think about it...they have gun violence, destroying the planet, letting the poor/sick/elderly suffer, evil corporations keeping you in poverty....what does the right have? Buy gold?

Both sides use fear-mongering. It's an effective tool for change.

[~Rocktar~]

Nobody is suggesting we pretend they don't happen. I think the issue here is using these things that happen a very small percentage of the time to try to drive national opinion and national policy in an irresponsible manner. You're more likely to get bit by a shark or struck by lightning than get killed in a "mass shooting".

Time to ban sharks and lightning, they are both a national health care crisis! What responsible person would continue to tolerate such a destructive element to continue unabated? Think of the children, Obama should write an order or something.

[Keller]

Can someone explain to me like I'm Squiggles how this is a Democrat document?

[Keller]

I'm normally the first person to use the "both sides do it, they're both garbage" line...hell, it's my bread and butter. Unfortunately I can't here. The left uses fear-mongering way more than the right. Think about it...they have gun violence, destroying the planet, letting the poor/sick/elderly suffer, evil corporations keeping you in poverty....what does the right have? Buy gold?

Do you ever listen to the mainstream conservative media?

[Latrinsorm]

I'm normally the first person to use the "both sides do it, they're both garbage" line...hell, it's my bread and butter. Unfortunately I can't here. The left uses fear-mongering way more than the right. Think about it...they have gun violence, destroying the planet, letting the poor/sick/elderly suffer, evil corporations keeping you in poverty....what does the right have? Buy gold?Just when I thought the crimes prevented by guns was the ultimate example of your bias, you go and top it with this.

http://orientalreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/colin_powell.jpg
Anyone else remember Heston setting up camp right near that girl's funeral and shrieking "FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!!"?That sounds like the Bowling for Columbine anecdote, which was not actually true.

[Whirlin]

Wasn't a republican document leaked last year about how to spin ObamaCare to be a massive failure, and generate animosity towards democrats?

[Methais]

Why would a spin even be needed?

[Whirlin]

Why would a spin even be needed?
Why would spin be needed to show that guns were at the center of large tragic events? And there are known loopholes that should be addressed.

They're the main rallying points of the two parties.

[Parkbandit]

Why would spin be needed to show that guns were at the center of large tragic events?

What? I can name literally a hundred tragic events where guns were not in the center.

[Elantari]

What? I can name literally a hundred tragic events where guns were not in the center.

Your brain is misfiring. Neural meltdown?

[Back]

Sure there are other tragic events without guns but you can bet your ass that when they happen we look at ways to prevent them in the future instead of this crazy counter intuitive notion that nothing should change or even worse relaxing conditions that allow them to happen.

[JackWhisper]

Parkbandit, I can only think of one such incident that did not involve guns that was a worldwide tragic event.

Elantari's mother decided NOT to swallow him.

World goes (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻.

[Elantari]

Parkbandit, I can only think of one such incident that did not involve guns that was a worldwide tragic event.

Elantari's mother decided NOT to swallow him.

World goes (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻.

This assumes that I have a mother. In actual fact, I voluntarily descended from Heaven to assist mere mortals with taking out the conservative trash.

[Parkbandit]

Your brain is misfiring. Neural meltdown?

Which part can I help you out with?

[Jeril]

Sure there are other tragic events without guns but you can bet your ass that when they happen we look at ways to prevent them in the future instead of this crazy counter intuitive notion that nothing should change or even worse relaxing conditions that allow them to happen.

If people really wanted to stop events like that from happening they'd look to remove the desire people have for committing them. But as far as I know people only really bring it up for political talk and it doesn't go anywhere because doing so would require real time and effort. Most people seem too intent on instant gratification though, and this affects us in nearly everything we do.

[Back]

If people really wanted to stop events like that from happening they'd look to remove the desire people have for committing them. But as far as I know people only really bring it up for political talk and it doesn't go anywhere because doing so would require real time and effort. Most people seem too intent on instant gratification though, and this affects us in nearly everything we do.

Well in this case it seems clear to me there are enormous loopholes that allow people to get guns. Not every who goes that route to get guns are a danger to society but isn't it obvious that there are people with ill intent who prefer to use a loophole to acquire weapons? Certainly that is something we can take action on to prevent the bad people from getting guns.

[Jeril]

Well in this case it seems clear to me there are enormous loopholes that allow people to get guns. Not every who goes that route to get guns are a danger to society but isn't it obvious that there are people with ill intent who prefer to use a loophole to acquire weapons? Certainly that is something we can take action on to prevent the bad people from getting guns.

We do need more reasonable gun laws, but I think there are too many crazies on either side of the issue to make it a reality. You've got the nuts who want to get rid of guns altogether and then those who view any change to gun laws as infringing on their rights because they consider it just one step closer to full filling the object of those who want them gone completely.

The biggest problem with those who try to use the gun violence as leverage is that they try to convince people that guns are the problem, which brings to mind a saying, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." With events like these guns aren't the real problem though it is just a smoke screen and the under lying problem is what we need to fix. If more people said they wanted reasonable gun laws and the cry for banning them altogether was turned into background noise you might actually see progress on the issue, but as I said, I just don't see it happening.

[Wrathbringer]

Well in this case it seems clear to me there are enormous loopholes that allow people to get guns. Not every who goes that route to get guns are a danger to society but isn't it obvious that there are people with ill intent who prefer to use a loophole to acquire weapons? Certainly that is something we can take action on to prevent the bad people from getting guns.

That's the thing, though. There's not.

[Elantari]

Well in this case it seems clear to me there are enormous loopholes that allow people to get guns. Not every who goes that route to get guns are a danger to society but isn't it obvious that there are people with ill intent who prefer to use a loophole to acquire weapons? Certainly that is something we can take action on to prevent the bad people from getting guns.

Apparently PigassBandit, who no doubt wants to start up some kind of militia, is allowed to own guns. That's a shame. Someone needs to report him to the IRS. Maybe Lois Lerner can harass him with some audits? It'd be good for society if the IRS managed to get PigassBandit locked up behind bars for a long time. As a wannabe militia member, he's no doubt also a tax-evader/tax-dodger. Someone needs to get the IRS to crack down on his ass and send him to prison.

[Androidpk]

Well in this case it seems clear to me there are enormous loopholes that allow people to get guns. Not every who goes that route to get guns are a danger to society but isn't it obvious that there are people with ill intent who prefer to use a loophole to acquire weapons? Certainly that is something we can take action on to prevent the bad people from getting guns.

What enormous loopholes do you speak of?

[Elantari]

What enormous loopholes do you speak of?

Probably the loophole that allows a dumbass like you to own a gun.

[~Rocktar~]

Probably the loophole that allows a dumbass like you to own a gun.

Too bad your parents didn't have to take a test to procreate.

But don't stop posting, I mean really, you are too funny.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Well in this case it seems clear to me there are enormous loopholes that allow people to get guns. Not every who goes that route to get guns are a danger to society but isn't it obvious that there are people with ill intent who prefer to use a loophole to acquire weapons? Certainly that is something we can take action on to prevent the bad people from getting guns.

What loophole and what do you propose? Other than the typical whiny liberal nonsense, do you have any ideas how in the fuck we could possibly close loopholes that don't exist? Hold on, let me wave my magic wand. Violent Crime is down consistently over the last 20 years (CDC). Gun Ownership has skyrocketed, quite a bit of it due to his Holiness Barrack Obama, your savior.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

We could totally stop gun violence with more videos like this though.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBOnRpnoGks

[Back]

What loophole and what do you propose? Other than the typical whiny liberal nonsense, do you have any ideas how in the fuck we could possibly close loopholes that don't exist? Hold on, let me wave my magic wand. Violent Crime is down consistently over the last 20 years (CDC). Gun Ownership has skyrocketed, quite a bit of it due to his Holiness Barrack Obama, your savior.

Before we even get into that... your avatar is dangerously false, misleading, and pure straight up propaganda. You're such a fucking idiot that you believe and propagate that all of them are liberals.

[Elantari]

We could totally stop gun violence with more videos like this though.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBOnRpnoGks

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine.



So you're a sexist idiot? Have you stopped raping your partner yet?

[Methais]

Before we even get into that... your avatar is dangerously false, misleading, and pure straight up propaganda. You're such a fucking idiot that you believe and propagate that all of them are liberals.

Now that you've gotten that out of the way, you can go ahead and respond to his actual post now.

[Wrathbringer]

Now that you've gotten that out of the way, you can go ahead and respond to his actual post now.

That's the thing though. He can't.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Before we even get into that... your avatar is dangerously false, misleading, and pure straight up propaganda. You're such a fucking idiot that you believe and propagate that all of them are liberals.

Cool. And you're a useful idiot. Now how do we close a loophole that doesn't exist? Do you somehow think MORE gun laws are going to have an affect on people that already don't give two shits about the laws in effect? You're against gun violence, fuck, so am I. But I also believe good people should have the right to protect themselves. I also believe in background checks. What I don't believe in is limiting the ability of good people to defend themselves because some dumbshit wants to feel better about themselves. When you come up with an even remotely realistic solution to stopping violent crime, let me know.

[Latrinsorm]

Now how do we close a loophole that doesn't exist?Legalize it.
Do you somehow think MORE gun laws are going to have an affect on people that already don't give two shits about the laws in effect?That has been the case in the past.

[Warriorbird]

Personally I think extending liability for the fault that people's weapons perform and stopping the mentally ill from having guns are good ideas. I hardly think either would stop all gun crime though.

[Back]

Cool. And you're a useful idiot. Now how do we close a loophole that doesn't exist? Do you somehow think MORE gun laws are going to have an affect on people that already don't give two shits about the laws in effect? You're against gun violence, fuck, so am I. But I also believe good people should have the right to protect themselves. I also believe in background checks. What I don't believe in is limiting the ability of good people to defend themselves because some dumbshit wants to feel better about themselves. When you come up with an even remotely realistic solution to stopping violent crime, let me know.

The intent is not to limit good people from acquiring firearms nor is it meant as simply a "feel good" measure. It is to prevent people who should not have them from getting them. Straw purchases, private sales, and gun show sales are where the loopholes are. One study shows they account for 40% of all gun sales. The same study says gun show sales are the leading source of arms used in criminal violence.

I'm very surprised that responsible gun owners themselves aren't clamoring for more enforcement to prevent irresponsible people from getting them.

[Tgo01]

The same study says gun show sales are the leading source of arms used in criminal violence.

What left leaning, bullshit "organization" conducted this study?

According to this site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html) gun thefts account for 15% of guns used in crimes, the number 1 way criminals get guns is through straw purchases, the second most popular way they get guns is from legally licensed dealers who are corrupt and sell guns to criminals illegally, the third most popular way are unlicensed street dealers.

Guess what? Each and every single thing I just listed is already illegal.

[Methais]

What left leaning, bullshit "organization" conducted this study?

According to this site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html) gun thefts account for 15% of guns used in crimes, the number 1 way criminals get guns is through straw purchases, the second most popular way they get guns is from legally licensed dealers who are corrupt and sell guns to criminals illegally, the third most popular way are unlicensed street dealers.

Guess what? Each and every single thing I just listed is already illegal.

Clearly we just have to make them MORE illegal, and then the criminals will start respecting the law.

[Back]

What left leaning, bullshit "organization" conducted this study?

According to this site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html) gun thefts account for 15% of guns used in crimes, the number 1 way criminals get guns is through straw purchases, the second most popular way they get guns is from legally licensed dealers who are corrupt and sell guns to criminals illegally, the third most popular way are unlicensed street dealers.

Guess what? Each and every single thing I just listed is already illegal.

UC Davis California. Surprised you want to use the "left leaning bullshit liberal organization" of PBS to cite pretty close to the exact same thing.

When a building is on fire you don't just shrug and say oh well. You throw water on it. Fire isn't good for houses but fire doesn't care.

[Dwaar]

UC Davis California. Surprised you want to use the "left leaning bullshit liberal organization" of PBS to cite pretty close to the exact same thing.

When a building is on fire you don't just shrug and say oh well. You throw water on it. Fire isn't good for houses but fire doesn't care.

Fire is the cleansing that this land needs! Fire will purge the sins from the body and wipe clean the plague that infests this world! Fire will rain down upon us all and purify us of our unclean thoughts!

[Tgo01]

UC Davis California.

You say this as if you proved my comment wrong or something.


Surprised you want to use the "left leaning bullshit liberal organization" of PBS to cite pretty close to the exact same thing.

A) WAT?
B) What I linked doesn't even mention gun shows.
C) WAT?
D) So you admit the most common ways for criminals to get guns is through means that are already illegal? So what is your problem exactly?


When a building is on fire you don't just shrug and say oh well. You throw water on it.

So you see fire and your first thought is water, huh? I guess this explains your approach to gun control, "Let's not think about what we're doing! Let's just do it!"

[Back]

You say this as if you proved my comment wrong or something.



A) WAT?
B) What I linked doesn't even mention gun shows.
C) WAT?
D) So you admit the most common ways for criminals to get guns is through means that are already illegal? So what is your problem exactly?



So you see fire and your first thought is water, huh? I guess this explains your approach to gun control, "Let's not think about what we're doing! Let's just do it!"

What you posted and what I posted are showing how criminals get guns and I am saying thats where we need to focus our efforts to prevent criminals from getting guns. Wouldn't you agree that would be a good idea?

[Tgo01]

What you posted and what I posted are showing how criminals get guns and I am saying thats where we need to focus our efforts to prevent criminals from getting guns. Wouldn't you agree that would be a good idea?

Did you miss the part how the most common ways for criminals to get guns is via already illegal means?

Yes, we should do more to enforce those laws but what you're asking for is yet more laws as if that's going to solve everything.

[Dwaar]

Did you miss the part how the most common ways for criminals to get guns is via already illegal means?

Yes, we should do more to enforce those laws but what you're asking for is yet more laws as if that's going to solve everything.

Similar to those that call for "comprehensive immigration reform". We already have immigration laws. Why they aren't happy enforcing those I'm not sure, but they'd have you think that we didn't have any to begin with.

[Warriorbird]

Similar to those that call for "comprehensive immigration reform". We already have immigration laws. Why they aren't happy enforcing those I'm not sure, but they'd have you think that we didn't have any to begin with.

I'm sure you can think of some reasons pretty quickly. Here's a little thought experiment. Why didn't the Republican Party do a national id card when they had both Congress and the White House?

[Back]

Yes, we should do more to enforce those laws.

http://media.giphy.com/media/veL6DyCLYL3Fu/giphy.gif

[Dwaar]

I'm sure you can think of some reasons pretty quickly. Here's a little thought experiment. Why didn't the Republican Party do a national id card when they had both Congress and the White House?

We have...

1. Social Security Cards
2. State ID cards
3. State Driver Licenses
and
4. I'd be perfectly fine with a National ID card for Citizens. So sure, lets get that passed. I'm all for it.

Of course, all the dipshit people that use needing an ID to vote as being racist, sexist, against the old, against the infirm... wouldn't have anything to bitch about then.

**Note... Or I could ask you... why didn't the Democrats pass a National ID law when they had the White House and both houses of Congress? Hmmmmm

[Dwaar]

http://media.giphy.com/media/veL6DyCLYL3Fu/giphy.gif

Sadly the comedian in that clip would be a better President. Maybe. Probably. Okay.... he would be.

[Tgo01]

http://media.giphy.com/media/veL6DyCLYL3Fu/giphy.gif

I'm confused. If your argument is we should be doing more to enforce laws already on the books then why haven't you even said that yet? I don't think I've ever seen you make the argument that we should do more to enforce our current laws; it's always been "But that evil NRA is bad! Because, like, they are lobbying to give every criminal a gun, or something. I dunno. I just heard something about gun shows on Rachel Maddow so I parroted it back."

[Methais]

When a building is on fire you don't just shrug and say oh well. You throw water on it.

What if it's a giant grease fire?

WHAT THEN, MR. RESTAURANT GUY!?!??!

[Back]

What if it's a giant grease fire?

WHAT THEN, MR. RESTAURANT GUY!?!??!

OH NO YOU GOT ME ALL MY ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID!

[Methais]

OH NO YOU GOT ME ALL MY ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZT_3ATkyuBo/Sj3hcZiZFcI/AAAAAAAAAGw/DqjPCGEugDo/S220/Kermit-Recognize-150.jpg

[Dwaar]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZT_3ATkyuBo/Sj3hcZiZFcI/AAAAAAAAAGw/DqjPCGEugDo/S220/Kermit-Recognize-150.jpg

HAHA.. I love your photo posts Methais.

[Elantari]

Did you miss the part how the most common ways for criminals to get guns is via already illegal means? Yes, we should do more to enforce those laws but what you're asking for is yet more laws as if that's going to solve everything.

You're a regular retard, aren't you? You infer from "the laws we have aren't working" to "more laws won't help". Were you shaken as a baby? Perhaps being shaken was a side-effect of your daddy pounding your tiny asshole and being a retard is a side-effect of having been shaken?

[Ashliana]

I'm normally the first person to use the "both sides do it, they're both garbage" line...hell, it's my bread and butter. Unfortunately I can't here. The left uses fear-mongering way more than the right. Think about it...they have gun violence, destroying the planet, letting the poor/sick/elderly suffer, evil corporations keeping you in poverty....what does the right have? Buy gold?

Let's see.. What does the right fearmonger about? Terrorists, Obama coming to take your guns, liberals trying to outlaw Christianity, Deathpanels coming for Grandma, minorities stealing elections with fraud, hysteria over Common Core "indoctrinating kids with atheism and homosexuality," etc--the list goes on and on, and there's no rational basis for any of them whatsoever.

Unlike climate change, which is actually a threat to humanity.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

The intent is not to limit good people from acquiring firearms nor is it meant as simply a "feel good" measure. It is to prevent people who should not have them from getting them. Straw purchases, private sales, and gun show sales are where the loopholes are. One study shows they account for 40% of all gun sales. The same study says gun show sales are the leading source of arms used in criminal violence.

I'm very surprised that responsible gun owners themselves aren't clamoring for more enforcement to prevent irresponsible people from getting them.

Where does the statistic of 40% come from? How the hell are you recording private, "black market" sales? Are you really this dumb? Gun show sales have to go through an approved FFL'd dealer just like anyone else. You don't just walk in, unless you're MIL or LE, and say I want that, here's cash, thank you.

[Thondalar]

I wonder, over the last...let's say 30 years, roughly the time most of us have been alive...how many guns used in "mass shootings" were purchased at gun shows by the person who did the shooting? I'm guessing that number is pretty small.

The main issue I have with the left is that all of their policy is reactionary without any real thought into the underlying causes of things and what would actually fix the problem. We have the most liberal, well-thought and robust immigration policy in the entire world...but there are people who live here illegally because their parents brought them here when they were very young. Instead of saying "well, I get that it's not your fault, but here's the path to citizenship that already exists, feel free to follow it" they go "omg these poor children! We should make them citizens immediately!" A mentally unstable young adult takes some of his parents' guns and shoots up an elementary school...it's not "why didn't the parents take care of their responsibilities to make sure their obviously unstable child got the help he needed", it's "omg guns are evil ban them!"

Knee-jerk policy-making is the worst kind.

[Parkbandit]

I wonder, over the last...let's say 30 years, roughly the time most of us have been alive...how many guns used in "mass shootings" were purchased at gun shows by the person who did the shooting? I'm guessing that number is pretty small.

The main issue I have with the left is that all of their policy is reactionary without any real thought into the underlying causes of things and what would actually fix the problem. We have the most liberal, well-thought and robust immigration policy in the entire world...but there are people who live here illegally because their parents brought them here when they were very young. Instead of saying "well, I get that it's not your fault, but here's the path to citizenship that already exists, feel free to follow it" they go "omg these poor children! We should make them citizens immediately!" A mentally unstable young adult takes some of his parents' guns and shoots up an elementary school...it's not "why didn't the parents take care of their responsibilities to make sure their obviously unstable child got the help he needed", it's "omg guns are evil ban them!"

Knee-jerk policy-making is the worst kind.

But they have to take advantage of a crisis to bring about the change they wanted all along. You call it "knee-jerk", but it's pre-calculated.

[Taernath]

I wonder, over the last...let's say 30 years, roughly the time most of us have been alive...how many guns used in "mass shootings" were purchased at gun shows by the person who did the shooting? I'm guessing that number is pretty small.

For mass shootings, probably not many. But what about the ones used in gang violence or trafficked to Mexico? I bet it's a lot more.

[Parkbandit]

For mass shootings, probably not many. But what about the ones used in gang violence or trafficked to Mexico? I bet it's a lot more.

I thought those came from our government ala "Fast and Furious"?

:lolwave:

[Taernath]

I thought those came from our government ala "Fast and Furious"?

:lolwave:

You realize that Fast and Furious wasn't the entire extent of guns crossing the border, right?

[Parkbandit]

You realize that Fast and Furious wasn't the entire extent of guns crossing the border, right?

I had hoped that the addition of the emote would have clued you into my sarcasm.. but I guess it was far too subtle.

From now on, when replying to a post of yours that I am joking about, I will include a full disclaimer. That way I don't take such liberties with your level of understanding.

[Thondalar]

For mass shootings, probably not many. But what about the ones used in gang violence or trafficked to Mexico? I bet it's a lot more.

Maybe it's just the area I live in, but I go to gun shows pretty often, and I don't recall ever seeing gangbangers. Like, ever. Trafficking to Mexico would be a bit iffy too...just seems like the cartels would have better places to get guns than civilian swap meets in the US. This is all logic and anecdotes, so who knows.

It would be nice to have legitimate data on these things before we make any sort of large-scale decision, I guess is more what I'm getting at.

[Warriorbird]

Maybe it's just the area I live in, but I go to gun shows pretty often, and I don't recall ever seeing gangbangers. Like, ever. Trafficking to Mexico would be a bit iffy too...just seems like the cartels would have better places to get guns than civilian swap meets in the US. This is all logic and anecdotes, so who knows.

It would be nice to have legitimate data on these things before we make any sort of large-scale decision, I guess is more what I'm getting at.

But we can't ever have data because that would be the end of the world.

[Methais]

But we can't ever have data because that would be the end of the world.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/justshaz/stickydart1.jpg

[Tgo01]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/justshaz/stickydart1.jpg

I'm setting booty traps!

[Back]

Maybe it's just the area I live in, but I go to gun shows pretty often, and I don't recall ever seeing gangbangers. Like, ever. Trafficking to Mexico would be a bit iffy too...just seems like the cartels would have better places to get guns than civilian swap meets in the US. This is all logic and anecdotes, so who knows.

It would be nice to have legitimate data on these things before we make any sort of large-scale decision, I guess is more what I'm getting at.

ROFL! Because criminals don't walk around wearing t-shirts that say "I'm a ciminal!". That is exactly why background checks need to be strictly enforced.

In my state you can buy a shotgun or a rifle without a background check. That seriously needs to change.

[Taernath]

Maybe it's just the area I live in, but I go to gun shows pretty often, and I don't recall ever seeing gangbangers. Like, ever. Trafficking to Mexico would be a bit iffy too...just seems like the cartels would have better places to get guns than civilian swap meets in the US. This is all logic and anecdotes, so who knows.

It would be nice to have legitimate data on these things before we make any sort of large-scale decision, I guess is more what I'm getting at.

I live in Arizona and have also been to my share of gun shows. You rarely see stereotypical gang members there because they get someone else to do the purchasing for them (a straw buyer). The ATF and its Mexican counterparts have been investigating this for quite a while, and there actually is data floating around (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf), though it's not exactly peer-reviewed journal kind of stuff. Cartels are notoriously fickle when it comes to double blind trials.


I had hoped that the addition of the emote would have clued you into my sarcasm.. but I guess it was far too subtle.

From now on, when replying to a post of yours that I am joking about, I will include a full disclaimer. That way I don't take such liberties with your level of understanding.

If I were you, I'd be more concerned that people can't tell the difference between your joking posts and your serious posts.

[Parkbandit]

If I were you, I'd be more concerned that people can't tell the difference between your joking posts and your serious posts.

I'm confident that you might be the only one that didn't understand I was joking.

DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IS NOT A JOKE.

[Parkbandit]

ROFL! Because criminals don't walk around wearing t-shirts that say "I'm a ciminal!". That is exactly why background checks need to be strictly enforced.

In my state you can buy a shotgun or a rifle without a background check. That seriously needs to change.

In your state, can you purchase a knife without a background check?

In your state, can you purchase a hammer or similar blunt object without a background check?

Both of these weapons are used in more homicides on average each year than a rifle or shotgun.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

ROFL! Because criminals don't walk around wearing t-shirts that say "I'm a ciminal!". That is exactly why background checks need to be strictly enforced.

In my state you can buy a shotgun or a rifle without a background check. That seriously needs to change.

To be fair though, your state is fucked up. They allow you on the internet without a license.

[Thondalar]

ROFL! Because criminals don't walk around wearing t-shirts that say "I'm a ciminal!".


You rarely see stereotypical gang members there...

This is very true. Fortunately, I've spent quite a while in law enforcement, and I've had a ton of security threat group training, more so than your average Joe. There are things to look for that most people wouldn't notice. The straw buyer issue certainly exists, I just don't see any way to effectively combat that without overreaching the scope of the (Federal) State's authority. It is still my position that the good of having an armed populace outweighs the bad. We're never going to have a land of cupcakes and unicorns, so we have to go with the best we can do.


The ATF and its Mexican counterparts have been investigating this for quite a while, and there actually is data floating around (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf), though it's not exactly peer-reviewed journal kind of stuff.

A pretty interesting read, although I'm finding an unnerving lack of raw data in GAO reports lately and a whole lot of "evidence indicates" and "could not determine" and "conclusions reached".

I did find this part interesting:


ATF maintains data on the firearms that
are seized in Mexico and submitted
for a trace, and, from these firearms
trace requests, ATF officials told us, they are often able to detect
suspicious patterns and trends that can help identify and disrupt arms
trafficking networks on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.

So...guns are already numbered and tracked? Isn't that what everyone wants to do anyway?

Like immigration, I can't help but feel like this is an issue that the most vocal people really don't understand. Ever notice how it's always "Something must be done about this! We must stop this immediately!" but there's never any answer given on how? As long as we do something, by George...we must do something.

[Thondalar]

Both of these weapons are used in more homicides on average each year than a rifle or shotgun.

It's not about saving lives, never has been.

[Methais]

In your state, can you purchase a knife without a background check?

In your state, can you purchase a hammer or similar blunt object without a background check?

Both of these weapons are used in more homicides on average each year than a rifle or shotgun.

BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Taernath]

This is very true. Fortunately, I've spent quite a while in law enforcement, and I've had a ton of security threat group training, more so than your average Joe. There are things to look for that most people wouldn't notice. The straw buyer issue certainly exists, I just don't see any way to effectively combat that without overreaching the scope of the (Federal) State's authority. It is still my position that the good of having an armed populace outweighs the bad. We're never going to have a land of cupcakes and unicorns, so we have to go with the best we can do.


My position isn't and has never been 'ban guns'. I've been around them most of my life, own several and sometimes go to shooting events. I do think, though, that they could be better "regulated" like the Second Amendment suggests. Right now there are some pretty giant loopholes in gun shows and private sales that are being exploited. While closing those loopholes won't end the problem, I think the effort should at least be made and we can then go on from there.

[Back]

In your state, can you purchase a knife without a background check?

In your state, can you purchase a hammer or similar blunt object without a background check?

Both of these weapons are used in more homicides on average each year than a rifle or shotgun.


It's not about saving lives, never has been.


BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd love to see the statistic that proves hammers kill more people than rifles and shotguns, or even just rifles alone or shotguns alone.

[Ashliana]

You won't, Back, because Parkbandit is--as usual--totally full of shit.

2008: 14,299 total murders, 9,484 of which were with firearms.
2009: 13,756 total murders, 9,203 of which were with firearms.
https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf

2011 Murders: 12,664
Out of those 12,664--8,583 were done by guns. 6,220 handguns, 323 rifles, 356 shotguns, 1,684 other types of guns. 1,694 with knives, 496 with blunt objects.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

In 2012, 12,765 total, 8,855 of which were guns.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_11_murder_circumstanc es_by_weapon_2012.xls

(Most recent years available).

[waywardgs]

I'm setting booty traps!

Goddamn it. It's "booty tWaps."
Ffs.

[Jeril]

2011 Murders: 12,664
Out of those 12,664--8,583 were done by guns. 6,220 handguns, 323 rifles, 356 shotguns, 1,684 other types of guns. 1,694 with knives, 496 with blunt objects.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11


He didn't say total gun violence just rifles and shotguns, compare those to knifes and blunt objects.

[Thondalar]

I'd love to see the statistic that proves hammers kill more people than rifles and shotguns, or even just rifles alone or shotguns alone.

Pretty easy to look up, the CDC tracks this sort of thing every year....oh wait, looks like Ashliana already did.


Out of those 12,664--8,583 were done by guns. 6,220 handguns, 323 rifles, 356 shotguns, 1,684 other types of guns. 1,694 with knives, 496 with blunt objects.

I really love it when you idiots pwn each other.

[Dwaar]

Damn.. that's a lot of stabbing and bludgeoning going on.

[Back]

Pretty easy to look up, the CDC tracks this sort of thing every year....oh wait, looks like Ashliana already did.



I really love it when you idiots pwn each other.

Still, you don't see a reason to require a background check for a rifle or a shotgun? Or is the first thing you think of for either home defense, or mass murder, a hammer?

[Androidpk]

Wonder what counts as an another type of gun. Death by flare gun!

[Dwaar]

Wonder what counts as an another type of gun. Death by flare gun!

Nail gun?

[Androidpk]

:lol2:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk-mtvyvd9o

[Back]

Potato gun?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CejsxceoSgc

[Androidpk]

Death by potato would be embarrassing.

[Warriorbird]

Love Gun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWkLOrfDAo4

[Thondalar]

Still, you don't see a reason to require a background check for a rifle or a shotgun? Or is the first think you think of for either home defense, or mass murder, a hammer?

Can't say I've ever thought of a mass murder, but for home defense my first thought would be my Mossberg. I'd probably use my Maglite before I used a hammer.

I'm guessing you're talking about gun show sales, since there are already federal laws requiring background checks in every State from licensed dealers. Would it interest you to know that a rather large gun control act was passed in 1968, and that in 1982 a bipartisan congressional committee found that seventy-five percent of ATF prosecutions were "constitutionally improper", which resulted in the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, which repealed some of the 1968 law and allowed what most of you are now calling "loopholes"?

See, we already tried to do this once, and it created bigger problems than before. In 1968, when gun restrictions were put in place, the murder rate was 6.9. In 1986, when some of these restrictions were lifted, it was 8.6...now that these restrictions have been lifted for a while, it's dropped steadily to it's current spot at a measly 4.7, tied for the lowest it's been since our grandparents were teenagers.

[Warriorbird]

Honestly I think most of the shady doings in Virginia result from people with dodgy paperwork, dealers who are flat out bent, and Internet purchases. From what I've seen gun shows aren't that much of a problem, except for things like the guy who suggested that we could pay him money to "go to a virtual gun show" to get our paperwork for a Taurus finished quicker. A lot of illegal guns come through here compared to the rest of the East Coast though. I just don't think most of the gun control advocate fixes would do much and they aren't proposing fixes that I think would (except that HIPAA waiver for gun purchases.)

[Back]

Can't say I've ever thought of a mass murder, but for home defense my first thought would be my Mossberg.

http://media.giphy.com/media/IOCXHPvn3WErm/giphy.gif

[Parkbandit]

Still, you don't see a reason to require a background check for a rifle or a shotgun? Or is the first thing you think of for either home defense, or mass murder, a hammer?

How many people have baseball bats by their beds? I know I had one prior to getting into guns.

[Parkbandit]

You won't, Back, because Parkbandit is--as usual--totally full of shit.

2008: 14,299 total murders, 9,484 of which were with firearms.
2009: 13,756 total murders, 9,203 of which were with firearms.
https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf

2011 Murders: 12,664
Out of those 12,664--8,583 were done by guns. 6,220 handguns, 323 rifles, 356 shotguns, 1,684 other types of guns. 1,694 with knives, 496 with blunt objects.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

In 2012, 12,765 total, 8,855 of which were guns.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_11_murder_circumstanc es_by_weapon_2012.xls

(Most recent years available).

English are harder too reed.

[Ashliana]

English are harder too reed.

Right you are. I didn't read carefully enough to see that you were referring only to rifles and shotguns. My bad. I can admit when I was wrong. See how easy that is?

[Kembal]

I have zero experience with guns, so I'm not going to hold myself out as qualified to offer solutions. (I found this thread pretty enlightening in terms of reading arguments I don't normally hear) However, I do find it ridiculous that there is a federal ban on research grant money being given to study anything regarding gun violence, or that the CDC and NIH themselves are not allowed to do research on the issue.

That's why there's so little data, and that's what really irritates me. Right now, for example, we have no clue if the drop in violent crime rates is because of increased gun ownership or because it's been 30 or more years since lead was systemically removed from the environment. Certainly, with the economic downturn, you would've expected violent crime to go up significantly over the past 6 years, but it hasn't.

BTW, is there a way to do a background check at a gun show right now?

[AnticorRifling]

Why does the 2011 stat leave 1891 non defined?

[AnticorRifling]

BTW, is there a way to do a background check at a gun show right now?

Yes. You don't walk of out a gun show with a new firearm without doing a background check.

[Parkbandit]

Right you are. I didn't read carefully enough to see that you were referring only to rifles and shotguns. My bad. I can admit when I was wrong. See how easy that is?

Apology not accepted. Please redo using italics, bold and underline so I know you are being serious. A few cap letters wouldn't hurt either.

[Ashliana]

Apology not accepted. Please redo using italics, bold and underline so I know you are being serious. A few cap letters wouldn't hurt either.

I was WrOnG!!

Enjoy.

[Taernath]

Yes. You don't walk of out a gun show with a new firearm without doing a background check.

The only ones required to do background checks at gun shows are non-private dealers.

[Latrinsorm]

See, we already tried to do this once, and it created bigger problems than before. In 1968, when gun restrictions were put in place, the murder rate was 6.9. In 1986, when some of these restrictions were lifted, it was 8.6...now that these restrictions have been lifted for a while, it's dropped steadily to it's current spot at a measly 4.7, tied for the lowest it's been since our grandparents were teenagers.How does the murder rate peaking in 1980 and 1991 factor into your analysis?

[Thondalar]

How does the murder rate peaking in 1980 and 1991 factor into your analysis?

Wait, you mean I can't use completely unrelated stats that look good to make a point that doesn't exist?

But but...people do it all the time! I'm just trying to be like the cool kids.

[Latrinsorm]

Wait, you mean I can't use completely unrelated stats that look good to make a point that doesn't exist?

But but...people do it all the time! I'm just trying to be like the cool kids.I'll never understand how multiple people can openly admit to trolling, and yet I'm the one who's always accused of it.

[Tisket]

I'll never understand how multiple people can openly admit to trolling, and yet I'm the one who's always accused of it.

You never pick a counter stance on a subject just because you like to debate? Come on, man. Be honest.

[Wrathbringer]

You never pick a counter stance on a subject just because you like to debate? Come on, man. Be honest.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?90888-What-medicinal-cannabis-can-do-for-you

[Tisket]

Sometimes I believe that he does hold some extreme views but mostly I think the reality is that he just likes to yank chains.

[Warriorbird]

Sometimes I believe that he does hold some extreme views but mostly I think the reality is that he just likes to yank chains.

Yep. His philosophy side as opposed to his science side.

[Latrinsorm]

You never pick a counter stance on a subject just because you like to debate? Come on, man. Be honest.My stances are always honest. Sometimes I make wise cracks within a larger position, but not to the extent of confusing the central points.

[Warriorbird]

My stances are always honest. Sometimes I make wise cracks within a larger position, but not to the extent of confusing the central points.

I seem to recall a certain long board discussion about intelligent design that'd stand against that claim.

[Parkbandit]

The only ones required to do background checks at gun shows are non-private dealers.

That really has nothing to do with gun shows. A private citizen selling a gun to another private citizen happens all the time outside gun shows.

[Latrinsorm]

I seem to recall a certain long board discussion about intelligent design that'd stand against that claim.You seem to say that a lot, but I went back and checked and you're misremembering. What I said was that...
1. Bush didn't advocate what you said he was advocating.
2. Science is fundamentally irrational (because it is fundamentally empirical).
3. I believe in evolution.
4. Someone was "dumber than Kansas", and I was all excited about the coinage but on further review I think Jon Stewart came up with it.
5. Your definition of scientific was satisfied by intelligent design. (Your! Not mine!)

Bottom line, your being wrong doesn't mean I said the people you disagreed with were right. I wasn't taking their position (that I did not believe in), I was taking a third way. A better way. An American way.

[Taernath]

That really has nothing to do with gun shows. A private citizen selling a gun to another private citizen happens all the time outside gun shows.

We're not talking about someone buying a gun for their mom, though.

Unless that mom gets a few hundred of them, then smuggles them to Mexico.

[Warriorbird]

You seem to say that a lot, but I went back and checked and you're misremembering. What I said was that...
1. Bush didn't advocate what you said he was advocating.
2. Science is fundamentally irrational (because it is fundamentally empirical).
3. I believe in evolution.
4. Someone was "dumber than Kansas", and I was all excited about the coinage but on further review I think Jon Stewart came up with it.
5. Your definition of scientific was satisfied by intelligent design. (Your! Not mine!)

Bottom line, your being wrong doesn't mean I said the people you disagreed with were right. I wasn't taking their position (that I did not believe in), I was taking a third way. A better way. An American way.

Whatever your interpretation it did mean you were standing up for something you didn't believe in for rhetorical self congratulation. It still happens quite a lot.

[Tenlaar]

That really has nothing to do with gun shows.

I think that is an absurd statement. Gun shows exist for people to sell guns, and "private citizens" who are looking to move a lot of guns use them for exactly that purpose. There have been investigations at gun shows that found the majority of "private citizens" who are there to sell guns are perfectly willing to sell guns to people who flat out say that they probably won't pass a background check or that they are buying guns for other people. The ATF has recognized that gun shows are a major trafficking channel for guns to go from the legal market to the illegal market. Then there was that time that the ATF investigated 195 gun shows (out of about 6,000 during the time period- that is 3%) and ended up with 121 arrests, 83 convictions, and 5,345 firearms seizures.

Gun shows are not the only place that private citizens can sell guns, but that does not mean they are not a place that people congregate to do so.

[Parkbandit]

I think that is an absurd statement. Gun shows exist for people to sell guns, and "private citizens" who are looking to move a lot of guns use them for exactly that purpose. There have been investigations at gun shows that found the majority of "private citizens" who are there to sell guns are perfectly willing to sell guns to people who flat out say that they probably won't pass a background check or that they are buying guns for other people. The ATF has recognized that gun shows are a major trafficking channel for guns to go from the legal market to the illegal market. Then there was that time that the ATF investigated 195 gun shows (out of about 6,000 during the time period- that is 3%) and ended up with 121 arrests, 83 convictions, and 5,345 firearms seizures.

Gun shows are not the only place that private citizens can sell guns, but that does not mean they are not a place that people congregate to do so.

Again, it has nothing to do with the gun show itself. The people who put that event on DO background checks. If the people who come to the gun show go out in the parking lot and sell some weapons to someone else, how is that the gun show promoter's responsibility? Answer: it's not.

If you believe it is the gun show's responsibility, how would you like to regulate this to ensure people won't buy guns from people?

[Latrinsorm]

Whatever your interpretation it did mean you were standing up for something you didn't believe in for rhetorical self congratulation. It still happens quite a lot.Suppose you sucker punch a guy, and you're standing over him with your fist cocked, and then I shoot the both of yas. Did I defend the other fella?

No.

My gun did.

[Tenlaar]

how is that the gun show promoter's responsibility? Answer: it's not.

First of all, if it's not the gun show promoter's responsibility to make sure that there are not illegal gun sales going on at their gun show, then who the hell's is it?

Second, go argue with the ATF about whether or not it has anything to do with gun shows. Guess what spot gun shows have on their list of ways that guns make the transition from the legal to illegal market? Spoiler alert: it's 2.

Third, that I don't have the answer does not mean that there is no problem. I don't know how to solve the problem, but I do know it's not by saying "nuh uhh!"

[Warriorbird]

Suppose you sucker punch a guy, and you're standing over him with your fist cocked, and then I shoot the both of yas. Did I defend the other fella?

No.

My gun did.

This'd be a telling example if you never actually shot him and only shot me to feel proud of yourself. It's sort of like Tgo1 and the Democratic Party with the guy you defended representing the Republican Party.

[Latrinsorm]

This'd be a telling example if you never actually shot him and only shot me to feel proud of yourself. It's sort of like Tgo1 and the Democratic Party with the guy you defended representing the Republican Party.Terry wasn't even posting here then! Your argument is a bird, therefore your argument is invalid.

[Tgo01]

When did I defend the Democratic Party? I must have been sick that day :(

[Androidpk]

When did I defend the Democratic Party? I must have been sick that day :(

"And that, kids, is why you never smoke marijuana."

- J. Walter Weatherman

[Tgo01]

"And that, kids, is why you never smoke marijuana."

- J. Walter Weatherman

Marijuana DOES cause psychosis!

[Warriorbird]

When did I defend the Democratic Party? I must have been sick that day :(

Don't worry. I said you attacked it.

[Tgo01]

Don't worry. I said you attacked it.

Whew!

[Parkbandit]

First of all, if it's not the gun show promoter's responsibility to make sure that there are not illegal gun sales going on at their gun show, then who the hell's is it?

Local law enforcement? ATF? Do you believe it's possible to put enough employees in a parking lot to prevent gun sales from individuals? How many employees do you believe that will take? 100? 200? Have you ever been to a gun show? There are literally THOUSANDS of people there. There is no way to prevent person to person gun sales... no more than you can prevent welfare fraud, black market sales, prostitution, ticket scalpers etc...

The real push here is to completely eliminate gun shows.. not for the concerns about person to person gun sales but to push one more regulation in a bigger overall effort to make guns difficult to purchase for people.


Second, go argue with the ATF about whether or not it has anything to do with gun shows. Guess what spot gun shows have on their list of ways that guns make the transition from the legal to illegal market? Spoiler alert: it's 2.

I've never questioned that it is a problem.. I question that it's a preventable problem and it's the sole responsibility of the gun show promoter.


Third, that I don't have the answer does not mean that there is no problem. I don't know how to solve the problem, but I do know it's not by saying "nuh uhh!"

Your answer to "solve" the problem is to blame it on the gun show. That's naive.

[Thondalar]

I think that is an absurd statement. Gun shows exist for people to sell guns, and "private citizens" who are looking to move a lot of guns use them for exactly that purpose.

The Gun Owner's Protection Act didn't completely remove the requirements of the 1968 gun control law...if you're moving "a lot" of guns you're not classified as a "private seller" and are required to follow Federal regulations.


There have been investigations at gun shows that found the majority of "private citizens" who are there to sell guns are perfectly willing to sell guns to people who flat out say that they probably won't pass a background check or that they are buying guns for other people.

This I don't doubt one bit. Problem is, further regulations on gun shows or removing gun shows completely won't change this. It's simply a side-effect we have to accept as part of having an armed populace.


The ATF has recognized that gun shows are a major trafficking channel for guns to go from the legal market to the illegal market.

They "recognize" this based on assumptions. Let's also keep in mind that the ATF has a LONG track record of screwing things up. A bipartisan Congressional committee found that 75% of their arrests in the late 70's and early 80's were improper...it's what lead to the Gun Owner's Protection Act. Then we have Operation Fast and Furious, which has somehow now almost been completely swept under the rug...ever heard of Operation Fearless? The ATF set up a bunch of fake pawn shops trying to buy guns and trace them and use ballistics to link them to crimes. Sounds great, right? Agents attracted juveniles with free video games and alcohol. In one case, the agency paid two informants, one mentally deficient, to get tattoos on their neck of a squid smoking a joint to promote the store. Taxpayers later paid to remove the tattoos. The whole mess is currently under investigation by two different House subcommittees.


Then there was that time that the ATF investigated 195 gun shows (out of about 6,000 during the time period- that is 3%) and ended up with 121 arrests, 83 convictions, and 5,345 firearms seizures.

Would it interest you to know that 79 of those 121 arrests were people the ATF had under investigation before the gun shows? They were going to get arrested regardless...it wasn't like some random investigation.


Gun shows are not the only place that private citizens can sell guns, but that does not mean they are not a place that people congregate to do so.

Well yeah. That's kinda the point of a gun show.

[Thondalar]

I'll never understand how multiple people can openly admit to trolling, and yet I'm the one who's always accused of it.

Using correlation to back up an assertion is not trolling. Being an incurable contrarian might be. At this point I'm thinking it's just a mental condition that you're not really in control of.

[Latrinsorm]

Using correlation to back up an assertion is not trolling. Being an incurable contrarian might be. At this point I'm thinking it's just a mental condition that you're not really in control of....alright. When you said you used "completely unrelated stats" it sounded like you were admitting the stats were nonsense, and that they had been so on purpose. Now it sounds like that interpretation was wrong, my bad. I'll ask again: how does the murder rate peaking in 1980 and 1991 factor into your analysis?

[Thondalar]

...alright. When you said you used "completely unrelated stats" it sounded like you were admitting the stats were nonsense, and that they had been so on purpose.

My point was that correlation is not necessarily causation. The stats, in and of themselves, are valid...but what does it mean??!?!?


Now it sounds like that interpretation was wrong, my bad. I'll ask again: how does the murder rate peaking in 1980 and 1991 factor into your analysis?

My analysis is that over a long period of time, there will always be outliers that you can't fully account for. In these specific examples I would say that 1980 was the beginning of the crack epidemic, and that may account for a spike. 1991 was...the beginning of gangster rap going mainstream? Hell, who knows. I could also point out that humans are irrevocably broken to begin with, and that any data gathered by humans must account for that.

It is not my belief that gun control laws affect the murder rate in any way, either positively or negatively. My point in posting them initially was to give lesser minds something to think about...those being, the people who think such correlations are important. People like that are generally the ones who base their beliefs on what they are told, and are generally the ones stumped by such numbers. If it doesn't fit into their preconceived notion, they freak out...but that's a good thing. I want more people to freak out and ask questions, and that by itself is what drives 95% of my posts.

[Warriorbird]

...alright. When you said you used "completely unrelated stats" it sounded like you were admitting the stats were nonsense, and that they had been so on purpose. Now it sounds like that interpretation was wrong, my bad. I'll ask again: how does the murder rate peaking in 1980 and 1991 factor into your analysis?

Why is it that you'll want to think about other factors here but not in that other thread?

[Tenlaar]

My point in posting them initially was to give lesser minds something to think about

http://shechive.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/berry-break-23-6.gif?w=500&h=282

[Back]

Meanwhile in Georgia...

Two Guys With Guns Have Showdown On First Day Of Georgia's New 'Guns Everywhere' Law


A "misunderstanding" between two armed men in a Georgia convenience store led to an arrest on the very day that the state's new expansive gun rights law went into effect, according to The Valdosta Daily Times. Valdosta Police Chief Brian Childress summed the incident up for the newspaper.

“Essentially, it involved one customer with a gun on his hip when a second customer entered with a gun on his hip," Childress said.
According to the Daily Times, the first man, Ronald Williams, approached the second man in the store and demanded to see his identification and firearms license. Williams also pulled his gun from his holster, without pointing it at the second man. The second man responded by saying that he was not obligated to show any permits or identification -- then he paid for his purchase, left the store, and called the police.

Police responded to the call around 3 p.m. Tuesday, and Williams was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct for pulling his gun in the store.

Tuesday was also the day that Georgia's so-called "guns everywhere" law went into effect, allowing residents to carry guns into bars, nightclubs, classrooms, and certain government buildings. Among other things, the law also prohibits police from demanding to see the weapons permit of someone seen carrying a gun. Childress mentioned that last point when talking to the Daily Times about Tuesday's incident.

“This is an example of my concern with the new gun law that people will take the law into their own hands which we will not tolerate,” Childress said.

So people can open carry just about anywhere in Georgia without having to show a permit? That seems insane to me.

[AnticorRifling]

Why would they have to show anything to a random person? Why is that insane to you? I'd be damned if I'd show you, just a random citizen making demands, my CCP just because you said show me.

[Back]

Why would they have to show anything to a random person? Why is that insane to you? I'd be damned if I'd show you, just a random citizen making demands, my CCP just because you said show me.

Because it allows everyone to walk around with a gun whether they have a permit or not?

[Warriorbird]

Why would they have to show anything to a random person? Why is that insane to you? I'd be damned if I'd show you, just a random citizen making demands, my CCP just because you said show me.

So a cop shouldn't get to ask either?

[AnticorRifling]

So a cop shouldn't get to ask either?

Cop != random citizen. Probably why I said random citizen and not anyone right?

[Warriorbird]

Cop != random citizen. Probably why I said random citizen and not anyone right?

Fair enough. I think the whole cops can't ask either bit is the one that bothers me about the law.

[Tgo01]

Yeah that law does seem pretty crazy. I thought a cop asking to see someone's permit was pretty standard. So how do cops know if that person is legally allowed to be carrying a gun?

[Back]

Yeah, just wait for the racial profiling lawsuits.

[Latrinsorm]

My point was that correlation is not necessarily causation. The stats, in and of themselves, are valid...but what does it mean??!?!?

My analysis is that over a long period of time, there will always be outliers that you can't fully account for. In these specific examples I would say that 1980 was the beginning of the crack epidemic, and that may account for a spike. 1991 was...the beginning of gangster rap going mainstream? Hell, who knows. I could also point out that humans are irrevocably broken to begin with, and that any data gathered by humans must account for that.

It is not my belief that gun control laws affect the murder rate in any way, either positively or negatively. My point in posting them initially was to give lesser minds something to think about...those being, the people who think such correlations are important. People like that are generally the ones who base their beliefs on what they are told, and are generally the ones stumped by such numbers. If it doesn't fit into their preconceived notion, they freak out...but that's a good thing. I want more people to freak out and ask questions, and that by itself is what drives 95% of my posts.Okay. So you are trolling.
Why is it that you'll want to think about other factors here but not in that other thread?I thought about and addressed every one of them. I will be happy to reiterate those addresses for any specific points if you'd like to ignore them again. :)
Yeah that law does seem pretty crazy. I thought a cop asking to see someone's permit was pretty standard. So how do cops know if that person is legally allowed to be carrying a gun?You're asking how Southern police officers tell if someone is committing a crime? Really?

[Tgo01]

You're asking how Southern police officers tell if someone is committing a crime? Really?

Yes. You going to answer the question or just flirt with me?

[Warriorbird]

I will be happy to reiterate those addresses for any specific points if you'd like to ignore them again. :)

You just didn't. You only display critical thinking for stuff you disagree with. Then you wave your hands and change the subject if there's counterpoints. You purposefully limit the scopes of your investigation to not challenge your established ideas. You also very carefully left out the point that she herself brought up. I agree with you here but it doesn't make it not dirty pool.

[Latrinsorm]

Yes. You going to answer the question or just flirt with me?Well I was going to, but the other one seems more fun. ;)
You just didn't. You only display critical thinking for stuff you disagree with. Then you wave your hands and change the subject if there's counterpoints. You purposefully limit the scopes of your investigation to not challenge your established ideas. You also very carefully left out the point that she herself brought up. I agree with you here but it doesn't make it not dirty pool.Didn't I not?

[Warriorbird]

Didn't I not?

You left it sitting right in the middle of a block quote. Why is intellectual rigor and evenhandedness only important to promote in others?

[Latrinsorm]

I quote a lot of things, can you be more specific?