America's Gun Violence

1193194196198199602

Comments

  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 8,588
    dudeman said:
    One is a constitutionally protected right, the other is a privilege. 
    One is supposed to be well regulated. 
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    mcgruff10 said:
    rgambs said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    dudeman said:
    One is a constitutionally protected right, the other is a privilege. 
    Ah yes, the ridiculous 2nd amendment. Too bad the founding fathers didn't have a crystal ball when they wrote that one. I really wish someone would address the fact that it desperately needs to be updated.
    What needs to be updated is societies definition of what constitutes a right.
    The Constitution also grants the right to own people.
    Frankly, I don't give a shit what those dodgy old fucks wrote about rights.
    Real human rights can't be granted by governments or taken away either.
    There is no such thing.
    If such a thing as rights existed they couldn't be denied or taken away.  What the fuck good is a right that can be taken away?  It's an asinine concept.
    We don't even have a right to air in our lungs, get over it.
    We certainly don't have a right to own guns without registration or tracking, that's just ludicrous.
    Where in the constitution does it say you can own people?
    The Enumeration Clause
    Article 1 Section 9 wherein Congress is forbidden from prohibiting the importation of slaves
    The Fugitive Slave Clause
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821
    Shall we also mention the Amendments, by which the document has been, well, amended, many times? That suggests that it isn't correctly viewed as perfect and immutable. 

    PS Last amended in 1992. Changes have occurred throughout the existence of the document. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    edited September 2017
    rgambs said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    rgambs said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    dudeman said:
    One is a constitutionally protected right, the other is a privilege. 
    Ah yes, the ridiculous 2nd amendment. Too bad the founding fathers didn't have a crystal ball when they wrote that one. I really wish someone would address the fact that it desperately needs to be updated.
    What needs to be updated is societies definition of what constitutes a right.
    The Constitution also grants the right to own people.
    Frankly, I don't give a shit what those dodgy old fucks wrote about rights.
    Real human rights can't be granted by governments or taken away either.
    There is no such thing.
    If such a thing as rights existed they couldn't be denied or taken away.  What the fuck good is a right that can be taken away?  It's an asinine concept.
    We don't even have a right to air in our lungs, get over it.
    We certainly don't have a right to own guns without registration or tracking, that's just ludicrous.
    Where in the constitution does it say you can own people?
    The Enumeration Clause
    Article 1 Section 9 wherein Congress is forbidden from prohibiting the importation of slaves
    The Fugitive Slave Clause
    I know what I was thinking: the word slave/slavery was not in the original constitution.  
    Post edited by mcgruff10 on
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    edited September 2017
    I hate the quote system lol
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    Shall we also mention the Amendments, by which the document has been, well, amended, many times? That suggests that it isn't correctly viewed as perfect and immutable. 

    PS Last amended in 1992. Changes have occurred throughout the existence of the document. 
    Correct, 17 amendments since the Bill of Rights.  Congress can't pass much of anything these days so good luck trying get the 28th amendment passed lol.  
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    mcgruff10 said:
    I hate the quote system lol
    Haha that's neat!
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    mace1229 said:
    Was it the gun or the perp that was illegal in the Aurora movie theater massacre? Was it the gun or the perps that were illegal at Columbine? Santa Barbara? Sandy Hook? How about the guy in the Florida movie theater who shot the guy for yaking on his cell phone during the previews? Was it him or his gun that was illegal? Can you guess what they all had in common? This one doesn't quite fit but was it the perp or his guns at Virginia Tech that was illegal? How about the church in Charleston, SC? Was it the perp or his guns that was illegal? He fits though, don't he? Dallas? Anyone want to tell me what was illegal in Dallas? The gun or the perp?
    Finding a handful of examples doesn't disprove that many acts are from illegally obtained guns or people who legally aren't allowed to be in possession of a gun.
    But my other point was mental illness as well. Many, even most of your list would be considered mentally ill on your list, even if they weren't diagnosed before the fact.
    i don't know if I haven't been clear or what. I'm not against gun control at all. But gun control should focus on the problem. Prevent people from getting guns who shouldn't have them. Be more strict against those who break gun laws (possession of stolen gun, illegal possession of guns, etc).
    Actually, most of those examples given didn't have any, or not significant enough mental illness that it would be considered a major factor in the offences. What they had was anger, resentment, and a fascination with guns and gun violence. Society's and media's tendency to say that any incidence of violence must be due to mental illness muddies the waters here. The vast majority of violence is not due to mental illness, though a big chunk is related to substance abuse. 
    Maybe I was wrong on that, but I thought it was pretty accepted that Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook (which are one of the biggest 3 on the list) are believed to have a mental illness or warning signs that were missed? Sort of what you said, the media's tendency was to imply anyone who commits a mass shooting and then kills themselves likely has some sort of mental illness, and that was pretty much the accepted stance at the time. Family, friends, professionals at school look at the warning signs that were missed.
    And my original point that this was a response to was that illegal activity make up a large portion of gun violence. Obviously not all are, but statistically criminal activity is a very large factor in gun violence.
  • mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    Was it the gun or the perp that was illegal in the Aurora movie theater massacre? Was it the gun or the perps that were illegal at Columbine? Santa Barbara? Sandy Hook? How about the guy in the Florida movie theater who shot the guy for yaking on his cell phone during the previews? Was it him or his gun that was illegal? Can you guess what they all had in common? This one doesn't quite fit but was it the perp or his guns at Virginia Tech that was illegal? How about the church in Charleston, SC? Was it the perp or his guns that was illegal? He fits though, don't he? Dallas? Anyone want to tell me what was illegal in Dallas? The gun or the perp?
    Finding a handful of examples doesn't disprove that many acts are from illegally obtained guns or people who legally aren't allowed to be in possession of a gun.
    But my other point was mental illness as well. Many, even most of your list would be considered mentally ill on your list, even if they weren't diagnosed before the fact.
    i don't know if I haven't been clear or what. I'm not against gun control at all. But gun control should focus on the problem. Prevent people from getting guns who shouldn't have them. Be more strict against those who break gun laws (possession of stolen gun, illegal possession of guns, etc).
    Actually, most of those examples given didn't have any, or not significant enough mental illness that it would be considered a major factor in the offences. What they had was anger, resentment, and a fascination with guns and gun violence. Society's and media's tendency to say that any incidence of violence must be due to mental illness muddies the waters here. The vast majority of violence is not due to mental illness, though a big chunk is related to substance abuse. 
    Maybe I was wrong on that, but I thought it was pretty accepted that Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook (which are one of the biggest 3 on the list) are believed to have a mental illness or warning signs that were missed? Sort of what you said, the media's tendency was to imply anyone who commits a mass shooting and then kills themselves likely has some sort of mental illness, and that was pretty much the accepted stance at the time. Family, friends, professionals at school look at the warning signs that were missed.
    And my original point that this was a response to was that illegal activity make up a large portion of gun violence. Obviously not all are, but statistically criminal activity is a very large factor in gun violence.
    Responsible gun owners until they become criminals. Gotcha.
     
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    Was it the gun or the perp that was illegal in the Aurora movie theater massacre? Was it the gun or the perps that were illegal at Columbine? Santa Barbara? Sandy Hook? How about the guy in the Florida movie theater who shot the guy for yaking on his cell phone during the previews? Was it him or his gun that was illegal? Can you guess what they all had in common? This one doesn't quite fit but was it the perp or his guns at Virginia Tech that was illegal? How about the church in Charleston, SC? Was it the perp or his guns that was illegal? He fits though, don't he? Dallas? Anyone want to tell me what was illegal in Dallas? The gun or the perp?
    Finding a handful of examples doesn't disprove that many acts are from illegally obtained guns or people who legally aren't allowed to be in possession of a gun.
    But my other point was mental illness as well. Many, even most of your list would be considered mentally ill on your list, even if they weren't diagnosed before the fact.
    i don't know if I haven't been clear or what. I'm not against gun control at all. But gun control should focus on the problem. Prevent people from getting guns who shouldn't have them. Be more strict against those who break gun laws (possession of stolen gun, illegal possession of guns, etc).
    Actually, most of those examples given didn't have any, or not significant enough mental illness that it would be considered a major factor in the offences. What they had was anger, resentment, and a fascination with guns and gun violence. Society's and media's tendency to say that any incidence of violence must be due to mental illness muddies the waters here. The vast majority of violence is not due to mental illness, though a big chunk is related to substance abuse. 
    Maybe I was wrong on that, but I thought it was pretty accepted that Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook (which are one of the biggest 3 on the list) are believed to have a mental illness or warning signs that were missed? Sort of what you said, the media's tendency was to imply anyone who commits a mass shooting and then kills themselves likely has some sort of mental illness, and that was pretty much the accepted stance at the time. Family, friends, professionals at school look at the warning signs that were missed.
    And my original point that this was a response to was that illegal activity make up a large portion of gun violence. Obviously not all are, but statistically criminal activity is a very large factor in gun violence.
    Responsible gun owners until they become criminals. Gotcha.
     
    Not what I said at all. But if thats how you want to twist it around, okay.
  • mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    Was it the gun or the perp that was illegal in the Aurora movie theater massacre? Was it the gun or the perps that were illegal at Columbine? Santa Barbara? Sandy Hook? How about the guy in the Florida movie theater who shot the guy for yaking on his cell phone during the previews? Was it him or his gun that was illegal? Can you guess what they all had in common? This one doesn't quite fit but was it the perp or his guns at Virginia Tech that was illegal? How about the church in Charleston, SC? Was it the perp or his guns that was illegal? He fits though, don't he? Dallas? Anyone want to tell me what was illegal in Dallas? The gun or the perp?
    Finding a handful of examples doesn't disprove that many acts are from illegally obtained guns or people who legally aren't allowed to be in possession of a gun.
    But my other point was mental illness as well. Many, even most of your list would be considered mentally ill on your list, even if they weren't diagnosed before the fact.
    i don't know if I haven't been clear or what. I'm not against gun control at all. But gun control should focus on the problem. Prevent people from getting guns who shouldn't have them. Be more strict against those who break gun laws (possession of stolen gun, illegal possession of guns, etc).
    Actually, most of those examples given didn't have any, or not significant enough mental illness that it would be considered a major factor in the offences. What they had was anger, resentment, and a fascination with guns and gun violence. Society's and media's tendency to say that any incidence of violence must be due to mental illness muddies the waters here. The vast majority of violence is not due to mental illness, though a big chunk is related to substance abuse. 
    Maybe I was wrong on that, but I thought it was pretty accepted that Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook (which are one of the biggest 3 on the list) are believed to have a mental illness or warning signs that were missed? Sort of what you said, the media's tendency was to imply anyone who commits a mass shooting and then kills themselves likely has some sort of mental illness, and that was pretty much the accepted stance at the time. Family, friends, professionals at school look at the warning signs that were missed.
    And my original point that this was a response to was that illegal activity make up a large portion of gun violence. Obviously not all are, but statistically criminal activity is a very large factor in gun violence.
    Responsible gun owners until they become criminals. Gotcha.
     

    This is what it is.

    Mental illness or evil combined with easy access to magnificent weaponry is a poor formula.

    There's lots of mental illness and evil that, for the moment, are part of the responsible group (we just don't know that in time... they'll shrug their label off).
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    What I said is there are two groups that make up most of gun violence stats.
    1) suicides
    2) unlawful possession of a gun

    That does not imply "responsible gun owners until they become criminals"

    I would be for most gun restrictions that target that, and against most that don't. The problem with gun legislature is they don't target the problems at all, and in effect only target lawful gun owners. Which has zero impact on the problem and makes the law abiding citizens upset.

    I'm fine with doing away with the gun show loophole. But has anyone bothered to ask why lawful gun owners want to keep it? Not because they want to become criminals, but the process is redundant and useless. 
    It can cost up to $100 to do a gun transfer at a gun show because of the background check and fees that go along with that. I can buy 2 guns and have to pay that $100 for each gun. I can be an active duty cop with one firearm at my side and another legally concealed and still have to pay that $100 a firearm.  It doesn't make any sense the way it is done.
    Do away with the loophole, fine, but then make it a smoother process for those who like to buy, trade and collect guns that doesn't cost $100 fee every time you purchase a $250 gun. At the very least allow simultaneous background checks.
    Thats just one example of the law not having an impact on anyone other than lawful gun owners. 
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via Chicago Posts: 6,786
    mace1229 said:
    What I said is there are two groups that make up most of gun violence stats.
    1) suicides
    2) unlawful possession of a gun

    That does not imply "responsible gun owners until they become criminals"

    I would be for most gun restrictions that target that, and against most that don't. The problem with gun legislature is they don't target the problems at all, and in effect only target lawful gun owners. Which has zero impact on the problem and makes the law abiding citizens upset.

    I'm fine with doing away with the gun show loophole. But has anyone bothered to ask why lawful gun owners want to keep it? Not because they want to become criminals, but the process is redundant and useless. 
    It can cost up to $100 to do a gun transfer at a gun show because of the background check and fees that go along with that. I can buy 2 guns and have to pay that $100 for each gun. I can be an active duty cop with one firearm at my side and another legally concealed and still have to pay that $100 a firearm.  It doesn't make any sense the way it is done.
    Do away with the loophole, fine, but then make it a smoother process for those who like to buy, trade and collect guns that doesn't cost $100 fee every time you purchase a $250 gun. At the very least allow simultaneous background checks.
    Thats just one example of the law not having an impact on anyone other than lawful gun owners. 
    That's the cost of doing business.  How much does it cost someone to rent a booth at a gun show?  To pack up a couple hundred guns and transport them to the gun show?  How many taxes are avoided in a personal sale?  How much overhead are they avoiding by not renting a proper store front, paying employees salary and benefits?

    Gun shows act like they're just selling a few guns to their buddies.  It's not, it's a profitable business and should be treated as such.  


    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    Was it the gun or the perp that was illegal in the Aurora movie theater massacre? Was it the gun or the perps that were illegal at Columbine? Santa Barbara? Sandy Hook? How about the guy in the Florida movie theater who shot the guy for yaking on his cell phone during the previews? Was it him or his gun that was illegal? Can you guess what they all had in common? This one doesn't quite fit but was it the perp or his guns at Virginia Tech that was illegal? How about the church in Charleston, SC? Was it the perp or his guns that was illegal? He fits though, don't he? Dallas? Anyone want to tell me what was illegal in Dallas? The gun or the perp?
    Finding a handful of examples doesn't disprove that many acts are from illegally obtained guns or people who legally aren't allowed to be in possession of a gun.
    But my other point was mental illness as well. Many, even most of your list would be considered mentally ill on your list, even if they weren't diagnosed before the fact.
    i don't know if I haven't been clear or what. I'm not against gun control at all. But gun control should focus on the problem. Prevent people from getting guns who shouldn't have them. Be more strict against those who break gun laws (possession of stolen gun, illegal possession of guns, etc).
    Actually, most of those examples given didn't have any, or not significant enough mental illness that it would be considered a major factor in the offences. What they had was anger, resentment, and a fascination with guns and gun violence. Society's and media's tendency to say that any incidence of violence must be due to mental illness muddies the waters here. The vast majority of violence is not due to mental illness, though a big chunk is related to substance abuse. 
    Maybe I was wrong on that, but I thought it was pretty accepted that Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook (which are one of the biggest 3 on the list) are believed to have a mental illness or warning signs that were missed? Sort of what you said, the media's tendency was to imply anyone who commits a mass shooting and then kills themselves likely has some sort of mental illness, and that was pretty much the accepted stance at the time. Family, friends, professionals at school look at the warning signs that were missed.
    And my original point that this was a response to was that illegal activity make up a large portion of gun violence. Obviously not all are, but statistically criminal activity is a very large factor in gun violence.

    About half or fewer of spree killings are likely related to mental illness. It's a smaller percentage with serial killers; probably much smaller. Aside from the spree killings, fewer than 5% of violent incidents are related to mental illness, so while I would never argue against timely and appropriate mental health treatment, that in itself is going to have very little impact on violence as a whole, and particularly gun violence.

    Gang violence is of course a significant issue, though very patchy and regional. Gun violence during the commission of another crime is of course an issue as well. Some figures that I looked at suggest that up to 40% of homicides by gun are ruled as due to "arguments". Maybe some of those are "arguments" between criminals, but a good chunk seem to be of the domestic/community/workplace variety.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • "Pretty accepted." By who? By what measure? By your opinion because if someone goes on a mass shooting rampage, they must be mentally ill. So by that logic, every law abiding gun owner is just an outburst away from being either a criminal or mentally ill. You also seem to equate the gun industry and the NRA as "responsible gun owners." They're the largest obstacle to any meaningful reform you express a desire to see.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229 said:
    What I said is there are two groups that make up most of gun violence stats.
    1) suicides
    2) unlawful possession of a gun

    That does not imply "responsible gun owners until they become criminals"

    I would be for most gun restrictions that target that, and against most that don't. The problem with gun legislature is they don't target the problems at all, and in effect only target lawful gun owners. Which has zero impact on the problem and makes the law abiding citizens upset.

    I'm fine with doing away with the gun show loophole. But has anyone bothered to ask why lawful gun owners want to keep it? Not because they want to become criminals, but the process is redundant and useless. 
    It can cost up to $100 to do a gun transfer at a gun show because of the background check and fees that go along with that. I can buy 2 guns and have to pay that $100 for each gun. I can be an active duty cop with one firearm at my side and another legally concealed and still have to pay that $100 a firearm.  It doesn't make any sense the way it is done.
    Do away with the loophole, fine, but then make it a smoother process for those who like to buy, trade and collect guns that doesn't cost $100 fee every time you purchase a $250 gun. At the very least allow simultaneous background checks.
    Thats just one example of the law not having an impact on anyone other than lawful gun owners. 
    Where's your link to the illegal gun possession is responsible for most gun stats after suicides?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    edited September 2017
    CM189191 said:
    mace1229 said:
    What I said is there are two groups that make up most of gun violence stats.
    1) suicides
    2) unlawful possession of a gun

    That does not imply "responsible gun owners until they become criminals"

    I would be for most gun restrictions that target that, and against most that don't. The problem with gun legislature is they don't target the problems at all, and in effect only target lawful gun owners. Which has zero impact on the problem and makes the law abiding citizens upset.

    I'm fine with doing away with the gun show loophole. But has anyone bothered to ask why lawful gun owners want to keep it? Not because they want to become criminals, but the process is redundant and useless. 
    It can cost up to $100 to do a gun transfer at a gun show because of the background check and fees that go along with that. I can buy 2 guns and have to pay that $100 for each gun. I can be an active duty cop with one firearm at my side and another legally concealed and still have to pay that $100 a firearm.  It doesn't make any sense the way it is done.
    Do away with the loophole, fine, but then make it a smoother process for those who like to buy, trade and collect guns that doesn't cost $100 fee every time you purchase a $250 gun. At the very least allow simultaneous background checks.
    Thats just one example of the law not having an impact on anyone other than lawful gun owners. 
    That's the cost of doing business.  How much does it cost someone to rent a booth at a gun show?  To pack up a couple hundred guns and transport them to the gun show?  How many taxes are avoided in a personal sale?  How much overhead are they avoiding by not renting a proper store front, paying employees salary and benefits?

    Gun shows act like they're just selling a few guns to their buddies.  It's not, it's a profitable business and should be treated as such.  


    It is a business. No one denies that.
    Is it safe to assume you never purchased a gun?
    The dros (background and licensing) fee was $25 last time I bought one. Seems reasonable. The government only allows licensed dealers to submit paperwork. Typically if you buy a gun from a licensed dealer they waive their separate private fee and only charge the $25 the government does. But if I buy a gun from a private citizen, be it at a gun show, from a friend or family member, I would have to go through a dealer to do so. That is when they would charge anywhere from $25-$75 for their fee to submit the paperwork. At a gun show it sucks, because they are becoming less common, so I may be living in LA and the closest gun show all year is Orange County, so there may be only 1 or 2 dealers at the entire gun show who are located in my area, and if they want to charge the $75 I'd have to pay it, and they do.
    Like you said, many at a gun show are really just a small scale gun shop who aren't big enough to get licensed. Usually a part-time/weekend business if they aren't licensed. Many are just hobbyists, and dedicated one weekend a month to doing a gun show because it is just the easiest way to trade a sell a collection of guns. Both would require a third party to do the paperwork. The gunshow loophole really has nothing to do with the business aspect of things.
    From my experience I would say only 10-20% of dealers have a license and the rest are forced to go through a third party.
    So the end result is gun buyers want to avoid the useless, yet costly step.  Sellers would like to as well, as it is harder to sell a gun without a license because you know the buyer will have to fork up an extra $50 or more to get the paperwork done.
    It just seems that in the day and age there is a better, faster and cheaper way to do things. I don't know, something like a one-time fee to have your criminal record linked to your driver's license (or separate card), so all we'd have to do is swipe our license and we get a green or red light for the sale. No idea if that would work, but just an example we don't need this archaic and costly background check in the modern day. I mean, seriously, you still hand write everything out, and no abbreviations allowed (except for the state, but you;d have to spell out boulevard on your address). Its ridiculous. My local Safeway rewards card has a more up-to-date system of tracking what I buy.
    Wouldn't a substitute to the current system be better for everyone? I mean, create a method that isn't a costly hassle and people wont try to avoid it or go around it, would benefit everyone.
    But reminds me of a point I made months ago. Many go owners perceive many of the laws just as a method to deter gun sales in general, since many anti-gun views are less guns = better, and don't focus on the root of the problem.

    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    mace1229 said:
    What I said is there are two groups that make up most of gun violence stats.
    1) suicides
    2) unlawful possession of a gun

    That does not imply "responsible gun owners until they become criminals"

    I would be for most gun restrictions that target that, and against most that don't. The problem with gun legislature is they don't target the problems at all, and in effect only target lawful gun owners. Which has zero impact on the problem and makes the law abiding citizens upset.

    I'm fine with doing away with the gun show loophole. But has anyone bothered to ask why lawful gun owners want to keep it? Not because they want to become criminals, but the process is redundant and useless. 
    It can cost up to $100 to do a gun transfer at a gun show because of the background check and fees that go along with that. I can buy 2 guns and have to pay that $100 for each gun. I can be an active duty cop with one firearm at my side and another legally concealed and still have to pay that $100 a firearm.  It doesn't make any sense the way it is done.
    Do away with the loophole, fine, but then make it a smoother process for those who like to buy, trade and collect guns that doesn't cost $100 fee every time you purchase a $250 gun. At the very least allow simultaneous background checks.
    Thats just one example of the law not having an impact on anyone other than lawful gun owners. 
    Where's your link to the illegal gun possession is responsible for most gun stats after suicides?
    It was hard to find an article that wasn't clearly bias. I read about 10, all any that discussed illegal possession of a gun stated it was a large majority. Any anti-gun article I read didn't mention it at all.
    here's one: I dont like uses sources that are clearly bias, but when it appears in article after article and is never disputed by the other side, that also says something.

    This site states 6% of crimes are comitted with legally purchased guns. I assume that figure implies legally purchased by the one who committed the crime. Many guns are legally purchased, but then stolen, and some just used without permission.
    http://extranosalley.com/what-percentage-of-crimes-committed-with-illegal-and-legal-guns/

    Wikipedia also states "18% of guns used criminally that were recovered in 1998 were in possession of the original owner.["

    So it is pretty clear to me that illegal possession of a gun is the problem. My observation is just guns law tend to target lawful gun owners, why don't anti-gun laws focus on the real problem?
  • mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    What I said is there are two groups that make up most of gun violence stats.
    1) suicides
    2) unlawful possession of a gun

    That does not imply "responsible gun owners until they become criminals"

    I would be for most gun restrictions that target that, and against most that don't. The problem with gun legislature is they don't target the problems at all, and in effect only target lawful gun owners. Which has zero impact on the problem and makes the law abiding citizens upset.

    I'm fine with doing away with the gun show loophole. But has anyone bothered to ask why lawful gun owners want to keep it? Not because they want to become criminals, but the process is redundant and useless. 
    It can cost up to $100 to do a gun transfer at a gun show because of the background check and fees that go along with that. I can buy 2 guns and have to pay that $100 for each gun. I can be an active duty cop with one firearm at my side and another legally concealed and still have to pay that $100 a firearm.  It doesn't make any sense the way it is done.
    Do away with the loophole, fine, but then make it a smoother process for those who like to buy, trade and collect guns that doesn't cost $100 fee every time you purchase a $250 gun. At the very least allow simultaneous background checks.
    Thats just one example of the law not having an impact on anyone other than lawful gun owners. 
    Where's your link to the illegal gun possession is responsible for most gun stats after suicides?
    It was hard to find an article that wasn't clearly bias. I read about 10, all any that discussed illegal possession of a gun stated it was a large majority. Any anti-gun article I read didn't mention it at all.
    here's one: I dont like uses sources that are clearly bias, but when it appears in article after article and is never disputed by the other side, that also says something.

    This site states 6% of crimes are comitted with legally purchased guns. I assume that figure implies legally purchased by the one who committed the crime. Many guns are legally purchased, but then stolen, and some just used without permission.
    http://extranosalley.com/what-percentage-of-crimes-committed-with-illegal-and-legal-guns/

    Wikipedia also states "18% of guns used criminally that were recovered in 1998 were in possession of the original owner.["

    So it is pretty clear to me that illegal possession of a gun is the problem. My observation is just guns law tend to target lawful gun owners, why don't anti-gun laws focus on the real problem?
    What is the "real" problem?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    CM189191 said:
    mace1229 said:
    What I said is there are two groups that make up most of gun violence stats.
    1) suicides
    2) unlawful possession of a gun

    That does not imply "responsible gun owners until they become criminals"

    I would be for most gun restrictions that target that, and against most that don't. The problem with gun legislature is they don't target the problems at all, and in effect only target lawful gun owners. Which has zero impact on the problem and makes the law abiding citizens upset.

    I'm fine with doing away with the gun show loophole. But has anyone bothered to ask why lawful gun owners want to keep it? Not because they want to become criminals, but the process is redundant and useless. 
    It can cost up to $100 to do a gun transfer at a gun show because of the background check and fees that go along with that. I can buy 2 guns and have to pay that $100 for each gun. I can be an active duty cop with one firearm at my side and another legally concealed and still have to pay that $100 a firearm.  It doesn't make any sense the way it is done.
    Do away with the loophole, fine, but then make it a smoother process for those who like to buy, trade and collect guns that doesn't cost $100 fee every time you purchase a $250 gun. At the very least allow simultaneous background checks.
    Thats just one example of the law not having an impact on anyone other than lawful gun owners. 
    That's the cost of doing business.  How much does it cost someone to rent a booth at a gun show?  To pack up a couple hundred guns and transport them to the gun show?  How many taxes are avoided in a personal sale?  How much overhead are they avoiding by not renting a proper store front, paying employees salary and benefits?

    Gun shows act like they're just selling a few guns to their buddies.  It's not, it's a profitable business and should be treated as such.  


    This picture got my thinking about the gun shows I used to go to as a kid.
    Yes, my dad would take me to gun shows as a kid. We lived just a couple miles from the LA county gun show. In the 80s and 90s that was probably the largest gun show in the country, people would travel from out of state to get to it. My mom, who never even shot a gun in her life, would also come too.
    But why? It was actually nothing like that picture above. Probably about 25% of the booths had anything to do with guns. It was more of an antique and collectors fair. It looked like the inside of an antique mall, with the exception that about one fourth of them sold guns. People made a living as a traveling antique/craft/whatever booth.
    You would also see more people who really were just selling a few guns from their collection, and not the strictly gun dealers.
    So people who describe a gun show as what you said really aren't wrong, or they weren't 20 years ago anyway.
    My parents were big into antiques, and they had a booth once or twice. I think it was like $100 for the weekend to sell some antiques they no longer wanted. My dad owns guns, but never once sold one at a gun show, just antiques and other collectibles.
    It has been 20 years since gun shows were like that with the new restrictions, it really is just gun dealers now selling only guns and ammo. It really was more like a fair expo before that.
    The idea of a gun show being a bunch of gun nuts shopping for guns is relatively new, ironically started by the anti-gun movement with the negative image of something labeled a "gun show," and the increased difficulty and cost of selling a gun made it impractical for the small time guy to be worth it.
    I remember the LA gun show got smaller and smaller every year, until it was mostly guns and then the business stopped and closed.
  • mace1229 said:
    CM189191 said:
    mace1229 said:
    What I said is there are two groups that make up most of gun violence stats.
    1) suicides
    2) unlawful possession of a gun

    That does not imply "responsible gun owners until they become criminals"

    I would be for most gun restrictions that target that, and against most that don't. The problem with gun legislature is they don't target the problems at all, and in effect only target lawful gun owners. Which has zero impact on the problem and makes the law abiding citizens upset.

    I'm fine with doing away with the gun show loophole. But has anyone bothered to ask why lawful gun owners want to keep it? Not because they want to become criminals, but the process is redundant and useless. 
    It can cost up to $100 to do a gun transfer at a gun show because of the background check and fees that go along with that. I can buy 2 guns and have to pay that $100 for each gun. I can be an active duty cop with one firearm at my side and another legally concealed and still have to pay that $100 a firearm.  It doesn't make any sense the way it is done.
    Do away with the loophole, fine, but then make it a smoother process for those who like to buy, trade and collect guns that doesn't cost $100 fee every time you purchase a $250 gun. At the very least allow simultaneous background checks.
    Thats just one example of the law not having an impact on anyone other than lawful gun owners. 
    That's the cost of doing business.  How much does it cost someone to rent a booth at a gun show?  To pack up a couple hundred guns and transport them to the gun show?  How many taxes are avoided in a personal sale?  How much overhead are they avoiding by not renting a proper store front, paying employees salary and benefits?

    Gun shows act like they're just selling a few guns to their buddies.  It's not, it's a profitable business and should be treated as such.  


    This picture got my thinking about the gun shows I used to go to as a kid.
    Yes, my dad would take me to gun shows as a kid. We lived just a couple miles from the LA county gun show. In the 80s and 90s that was probably the largest gun show in the country, people would travel from out of state to get to it. My mom, who never even shot a gun in her life, would also come too.
    But why? It was actually nothing like that picture above. Probably about 25% of the booths had anything to do with guns. It was more of an antique and collectors fair. It looked like the inside of an antique mall, with the exception that about one fourth of them sold guns. People made a living as a traveling antique/craft/whatever booth.
    You would also see more people who really were just selling a few guns from their collection, and not the strictly gun dealers.
    So people who describe a gun show as what you said really aren't wrong, or they weren't 20 years ago anyway.
    My parents were big into antiques, and they had a booth once or twice. I think it was like $100 for the weekend to sell some antiques they no longer wanted. My dad owns guns, but never once sold one at a gun show, just antiques and other collectibles.
    It has been 20 years since gun shows were like that with the new restrictions, it really is just gun dealers now selling only guns and ammo. It really was more like a fair expo before that.
    The idea of a gun show being a bunch of gun nuts shopping for guns is relatively new, ironically started by the anti-gun movement with the negative image of something labeled a "gun show," and the increased difficulty and cost of selling a gun made it impractical for the small time guy to be worth it.
    I remember the LA gun show got smaller and smaller every year, until it was mostly guns and then the business stopped and closed.
    Ha ha.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 8,588
    I remember being at a gun show in the 80s and there was all this nazi memorabilia. Kind of creepy when I think about it now.  
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via Chicago Posts: 6,786
    I remember being at a gun show in the 80s and there was all this nazi memorabilia. Kind of creepy when I think about it now.  
    I'm sure it's a totally different crowd that attends gun shows nowadays.  


    Where's Waldo? 
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • CM189191 said:
    I remember being at a gun show in the 80s and there was all this nazi memorabilia. Kind of creepy when I think about it now.  
    I'm sure it's a totally different crowd that attends gun shows nowadays.  


    Where's Waldo? 
    Don't you mean where's Eric and Dylan?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    I remember being at a gun show in the 80s and there was all this nazi memorabilia. Kind of creepy when I think about it now.  
    I remember that too, but it was usually just WWII collectors who had a lot of items from both sides of the war. I'm sure there were freaks who collected just Nazi stuff, you get 100 people together you're going to get a few freaks.
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via Chicago Posts: 6,786
    mace1229 said:
    I remember being at a gun show in the 80s and there was all this nazi memorabilia. Kind of creepy when I think about it now.  
    I remember that too, but it was usually just WWII collectors who had a lot of items from both sides of the war. I'm sure there were freaks who collected just Nazi stuff, you get 100 people together you're going to get a few freaks.
    ...both sides...
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    Yes. Many WWII collectors will collect items from USA< England, Russia and even Germany. I see nothing wrong with that if it is being collected as a historical artifact. I personally wouldnt care to own anything connected to Nazi, but if it is for a historical WWII collection I dont see anything wrong with it.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    mace1229 said:
    Yes. Many WWII collectors will collect items from USA< England, Russia and even Germany. I see nothing wrong with that if it is being collected as a historical artifact. I personally wouldnt care to own anything connected to Nazi, but if it is for a historical WWII collection I dont see anything wrong with it.
    Yep, and the Confederate flags are for Civil War collectors.  Many sides.


    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo Face Posts: 6,499
    edited September 2017
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    Yes. Many WWII collectors will collect items from USA< England, Russia and even Germany. I see nothing wrong with that if it is being collected as a historical artifact. I personally wouldnt care to own anything connected to Nazi, but if it is for a historical WWII collection I dont see anything wrong with it.
    Yep, and the Confederate flags are for Civil War collectors.  Many sides.


    And communist flags are for genocide collectors...maybe we should just ban all flags as they all could be linked to a not so desirable history.  Ban, ban, ban until there is nothing left to ban.
    Wait, this thread is about gun violence, not flags...or collecting.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 9,195
    Worst of all are American flag collectors. Anyone willing to explain what it stands for?
    It's a hopeless situation...
This discussion has been closed.