Gun Debate

soulsinging

PJPOWER wrote:

Are you against actually enforcing the laws that are in place? How the fuck do people think newer gun control laws are going to work without more police/enforcement? If people are wanting more strict laws and no further law enforcement......................well, they are pretty stupid people. Which side of the debate are you, my friend?

id rather scrap the current laws wholesale and start over. they're confusing, contradictory, ridiculous, and ineffective. let's take a mulligan.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...but this isn't a conflict between me and the worrier. This is a conflict between the worrier and reality. Human beings always "can possibly be hurt by other people's poor judgments and buying decisions". And whether or not you worry about that is entirely within your control. Furthermore, your proposed law hurts me based on your poor judgments, and you've already demonstrated by your proposal that one man's worry can control another man's behavior. So why do you not submit to my worry?

what is your worry in this situation? if it's that the government is going to... i dont know, do something bad to you, then i'd say the unfortunate thing for you is that more people are worried about being shot to death by a psychopath than they are worried about the government going fascist on us overnight. in that case, sucks to be you, but thus is democracy.

farfromglorified wrote:

Not really, no. Because here's the thing -- if no one wanted to sell me their guns, I would have no such entitlement. The right of exchange requires at least two parties -- a seller and a buyer. The "entitlement" arises from the will of both, when that will is consistent. The fear you mention, however, is entirely self-contained and is more often than not completely irrational.

given the rates of gun related deaths each year, i rather doubt you can seriously contend it is an irrational fear.

PJPOWER

hippiemom wrote:

My husband has bought guns at shows from people who are almost certainly law-abiding, decent citizens ... they've got their table set up at the shows week after week, they seem like nice folks ... and he's never once been asked for any identification from anyone who isn't a licensed dealer. Personally, I'd keep records for my own protection, as you would, but most people don't, and I'm not talking about the criminal element. I am not for the repeal of gun rights, but I am definitely for tightening regulations nationwide. The laws in places like Virginia and Ohio are an invitation to disaster.

Yeah, I do think it's pretty stupid how some gun shows opperate. That's what I don't get..............we have the technology. Would it be so hard to have a drivers license scanner at the entry to these gun shows? When I go to the liqour store that I buy most of my alcohol, I get my license scanned before I can buy anything. They aren't required that by law, but it's a good safety measure. The hosts of the gun shows could even do this instead of leaving it up to the sellers. There are middle grounds that could be effective if people actually just did some of these things, we wouldn't have to worry about our constitutional rights being taken away. Where has all the good gone? Why do we have to force people to do good things in this day and age? Colleges won't put in metal detectors until they are forced to. People won't keep records of guns they sell until they're forced to.........? We don't need more laws.............we need more..........or rather "better" education.

onelongsong

Quint wrote:

No, that is true. But this debate in my opinion isn;t about what happened at Virginia Tech. I have to agree with other people here: It's sad that it happened, but you can't stop an idiot/psychotic. The debate here is (as far as I'm concerned) whether you should keep it relatively easy for people to obtain guns, thus increasing the chance of a drama happening.

the more laws that make it harder for a citizen to buy a gun only strenghtens the black market for guns. look at prohibition and the current drug laws.
example: if pot were legal; there wouldn't be any money in smuggling it. gambling and prostitution are legal in nevada and the state gets revenues from it. where is the market to obtain these illegally?

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

if you purchased from a private party; you are correct; they wouldn't know you have/had it. however; the supreme court has ruled several times that federal law supersedes state law. if you recall; the government went to great lenghts to track down the sellers who sold the guns to the columbine students. as i recall; it was to charge them as accomplices and not to shake their hands.

That's because it's illegal to sell a gun to minors. If I sold a gun to an adult resident of Ohio who had a psychiatric history and an extensive criminal record, I'd be completely in the clear because I'm not required to lift a finger to determine anything about the buyer beyond his age and residency, and there's no other screening process he must pass through.

PJPOWER

soulsinging wrote:

id rather scrap the current laws wholesale and start over. they're confusing, contradictory, ridiculous, and ineffective. let's take a mulligan.

I agree with every word of that post, lol

PJPOWER

Quint wrote:

No, that is true. But this debate in my opinion isnt about what happened at Virginia Tech. I have to agree with other people here: It's sad that it happened, but you can't stop an idiot/psychotic. The debate here is (as far as I'm concerned) whether you should keep it relatively easy for people to obtain guns, thus increasing the chance of a drama happening. Besides, my suggestion was only meant to show that in my opnion there are things that can be done without choosing either side of the debate.

We pretty much agree with each other. My defenses are still up from the beginning of this debate where 90% of the people were either wanting to ban guns or do nothing and 1% of us were searching through the grey area, lol

onelongsong

Quint wrote:

No I don't. I rely on my government to protect me and my country. Besides with the Netherlands being part of the NATO and European Union, I can hardly imagine history repeating itself again in the short term.

those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. nobody expected a german dictator less than 20 years after WWI either. no one imagined germany could rise to power again so quickly. as i recall; you're government didn't do so well protecting it's people during WWI and WWII. no offence but it was armed american citizens that fought off every attack made on native soil. both times england attacked; THEY were the super power.

hippiemom

PJPOWER wrote:

Yeah, I do think it's pretty stupid how some gun shows opperate. That's what I don't get..............we have the technology. Would it be so hard to have a drivers license scanner at the entry to these gun shows? When I go to the liqour store that I buy most of my alcohol, I get my license scanned before I can buy anything. They aren't required that by law, but it's a good safety measure. The hosts of the gun shows could even do this instead of leaving it up to the sellers. There are middle grounds that could be effective if people actually just did some of these things, we wouldn't have to worry about our constitutional rights being taken away. Where has all the good gone? Why do we have to force people to do good things in this day and age? Colleges won't put in metal detectors until they are forced to. People won't keep records of guns they sell until they're forced to.........? We don't need more laws.............we need more..........or rather "better" education.

People won't do things until they're forced to because it costs money, and/or it's inconvenient. I agree there are middle grounds that could go a long way towards reducing the problem, but I don't expect anyone to do much voluntarily. I do think that requiring simple record-keeping, and holding people criminally liable for crimes committed with their guns when those records are not kept, would keep the overwhelming majority of gun owners, who are law-abiding people, on the straight and narrow and reduce the number of guns available on the black market. There should be a traceable record of every gun sold in this country, just like with cars.

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

That's because it's illegal to sell a gun to minors. If I sold a gun to an adult resident of Ohio who had a psychiatric history and an extensive criminal record, I'd be completely in the clear because I'm not required to lift a finger to determine anything about the buyer beyond his age and residency, and there's no other screening process he must pass through.

the buyer in the columbine incident was 18 and could legally buy long guns. when the feds get involved; ohio law means nothing.

hippiemom

soulsinging wrote:

id rather scrap the current laws wholesale and start over. they're confusing, contradictory, ridiculous, and ineffective. let's take a mulligan.

This is the best post in the whole thread.

PJPOWER

hippiemom wrote:

People won't do things until they're forced to because it costs money, and/or it's inconvenient. I agree there are middle grounds that could go a long way towards reducing the problem, but I don't expect anyone to do much voluntarily. I do think that requiring simple record-keeping, and holding people criminally liable for crimes committed with their guns when those records are not kept, would keep the overwhelming majority of gun owners, who are law-abiding people, on the straight and narrow and reduce the number of guns available on the black market. There should be a traceable record of every gun sold in this country, just like with cars.

That's logical and I don't see how it infringes on anyone's rights to have guns. The black market, though...........Those guns don't come from legit markets most of the time. More patroling the borders? Wait, no, that would be racist..........even though more strict regulation would increase the illegal trafficing of firearms.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

the buyer in the columbine incident was 18 and could legally buy long guns. when the feds get involved; ohio law means nothing.

He was prosecuted because he sold the gun to both kids, one of whom was 17 years old. There was no overriding of Colorado law involved in the prosecution.

Quint

onelongsong wrote:

the more laws that make it harder for a citizen to buy a gun only strenghtens the black market for guns.

For that to be true, there should be guns to flow to the black market in the first place. Since marihuana is a plant anyone can grow it and sell it on the black market (As goes for the poppy and cocaplant to some extend).

And to answer your next comment: Yes, in theory it is also possible to create a gun yourself.

As I was saying, although I can't really understand the American obsession with personal freedom (and related to that: the right to bare arms), I'm trying to find (part of a) solution which does justice to both sides of the debate. I.e. stricter registration rules: anyone can still buy a gun, only it is better registered.

hippiemom

PJPOWER wrote:

That's logical and I don't see how it infringes on anyone's rights to have guns. The black market, though...........Those guns don't come from legit markets most of the time. More patroling the borders? Wait, no, that would be racist..........even though more strict regulation would increase the illegal trafficing of firearms.

Black market firearms are but one of MANY reasons we should be better policing our borders.

Quint

onelongsong wrote:

those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. nobody expected a german dictator less than 20 years after WWI either. no one imagined germany could rise to power again so quickly. as i recall; you're government didn't do so well protecting it's people during WWI and WWII. no offence but it was armed american citizens that fought off every attack made on native soil. both times england attacked; THEY were the super power.

Let's not go there, okay?
1) My country (the Netherlands) did great in WWI. No need for any American to save our skin, since we weren't occupied by any of the parties. We were neutral all the way through...
2) WWII is an other story all together: The entire world was different back then. There was an worldwide economic crisis fuelling ultra-nationalist powers all over. In Germany this was further fuelled by the war-payments they had to make. As I said before; we now have a European Union to prevent precisely that what has happened back then.

So please get your facts straight and let's get back to the debate.

onelongsong

Quint wrote:

For that to be true, there should be guns to flow to the black market in the first place. Since marihuana is a plant anyone can grow it and sell it on the black market (As goes for the poppy and cocaplant to some extend).

And to answer your next comment: Yes, in theory it is also possible to create a gun yourself.

As I was saying, although I can't really understand the American obsession with personal freedom (and related to that: the right to bare arms), I'm trying to find (part of a) solution which does justice to both sides of the debate. I.e. stricter registration rules: anyone can still buy a gun, only it is better registered.

don't get me wrong; i respect that and you also for your level headed approach. 23 states have conceiled weapons permits available which requires fingerprints to be submitted to the FBI and also a class with written exam and shooting exam. a gun has never loaded itself and fired itself at anyone. it is people control that is needed.
as far as personal freedom; in 200 years, america has been attacked several times. twice by the british; once by the french; at least once by the mexicans; and in august 1945; a japanese submarine was poised off the coast of california ready to fire a german made missle filled with nuclear waste.
today; we have 1 million invaders crossing the mexican border each year alone. we have invaders crossing the canadian border and people invading our shores by boat. our government with spy planes and armed border guards is helpless in protecting us. our cities are run by gangs and the police are helpless. drug cartels remove billions from the american economy making our poor; poorer. when these problems are solved; maybe guns will be obsolete; until then; we are still a young country and prepared to protect our freedoms.

onelongsong

Quint wrote:

For that to be true, there should be guns to flow to the black market in the first place. Since marihuana is a plant anyone can grow it and sell it on the black market (As goes for the poppy and cocaplant to some extend).

And to answer your next comment: Yes, in theory it is also possible to create a gun yourself.

As I was saying, although I can't really understand the American obsession with personal freedom (and related to that: the right to bare arms), I'm trying to find (part of a) solution which does justice to both sides of the debate. I.e. stricter registration rules: anyone can still buy a gun, only it is better registered.

with all due respect; i can make a gun in an hour. it will be single shot but i can do it. the FBI has an entire room full of homemade guns that have been confiscated. imagine the number they haven't gotten.

soulsinging

PJPOWER wrote:

That's logical and I don't see how it infringes on anyone's rights to have guns. The black market, though...........Those guns don't come from legit markets most of the time. More patroling the borders? Wait, no, that would be racist..........even though more strict regulation would increase the illegal trafficing of firearms.

i would really like to see some stats on this. i have a VERY hard time believing anything more than a very small fraction of guns in this country were illegally run across our borders. there's no need for it. you can go into a pawnshop and get somebody's second hand for a fraction of the price. aside from machine guns and antiques, there's no need to import anything. the people running across the border don't have money to be bringing guns, otherwise they wouldn't be leaving. they buy them when they get here. at most, they're (thankfully) bringing us some primo bud

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

don't get me wrong; i respect that and you also for your level headed approach. 23 states have conceiled weapons permits available which requires fingerprints to be submitted to the FBI and also a class with written exam and shooting exam. a gun has never loaded itself and fired itself at anyone. it is people control that is needed.
as far as personal freedom; in 200 years, america has been attacked several times. twice by the british; once by the french; at least once by the mexicans; and in august 1945; a japanese submarine was poised off the coast of california ready to fire a german made missle filled with nuclear waste.
today; we have 1 million invaders crossing the mexican border each year alone. we have invaders crossing the canadian border and people invading our shores by boat. our government with spy planes and armed border guards is helpless in protecting us. our cities are run by gangs and the police are helpless. drug cartels remove billions from the american economy making our poor; poorer. when these problems are solved; maybe guns will be obsolete; until then; we are still a young country and prepared to protect our freedoms.

how can you claim to be an attorney and advocate and yet consistently misspell concealed?