Gun violence close to home

[Winston Legthigh]

Such info is already obtained at the first legal sale of a firearm. You're assuming that Joe Thug would decide to pop down for a background check when he buys a street gun from Charles Gangbanger. Not gonna happen.

 

So, why not require it beyond the first legal sale? Joe Citizen wants to legally sell his gun? Document and track it. Joe Citizen wants to sell it to Mr. Criminal? He'll do time for falsifying forms or for not submitting forms at all. Hard time.

 

It would also aid in the confiscation of firearms if the government ever decides to go that route. 

 

 *taps nose*

[ih8music]

The more I read debates like this, the more I realize how truly scared some folks are.

[Tweedling]

Uncool2pillow, not aimed at anyone in particular just pointing out that there are things other countries do that may work for them but will not go over here.

My "owning" comment was meant as a compliment to Hixter for addressing all of the people who ask him questions. Hahaha The ones that bug me the most start off with, "so what your saying is...." when in fact they know it's not at all what he's saying.

As far as registering guns, I think the registering leads to confiscation is a probable scenario. No?

[Lammycat]

So what you're saying is Hixter (if that's even his real name) "owns" us because he's packing heat?

[Tweedling]

So what you're saying is Hixter (if that's even his real name) "owns" us because he's packing heat?

Nailed it

[Mr. Heartbreak]

You're assuming that Joe Thug would decide to pop down for a background check when he buys a street gun from Charles Gangbanger. 

I may not agree with you on everything, but I have to admit, this is pretty classic.

[Winston Legthigh]

As far as registering guns, I think the registering leads to confiscation is a probable scenario. No?

 

You're saying there's more than a 50% chance confiscation would happen?

[Tweedling]

I believe that some cities in California used registrations to confiscate guns. I also have heard Chicago used a long gun registry to confiscate semi automatic guns. I've only been told that, I'm sure people on here who live there can support or deny this.

Let's see, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Bermuda, Cuba, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia...have all used a registry to confiscate citizens privately owned guns.... So I'd say more than a 50% chance but I'm no statistician.

Weren't they confiscating registered guns in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina?

 

[Ghost of Electricity]

You're completely ignoring my comments about other weapons (knives, bare hands, etc.) and trying to boil it all down to statistics which only include injury by firearm. Only one thing matters: my safety. I don't care if the intruder is armed, unarmed, a raving murderer or the teenager down the street: I am going to protect my safety and a gun will be my method of protecting myself and stopping the threat to my safety.

 

And since when do guns "backfire"?

Backfire, misfire.  I openly admit to being ignorant of the terminology.  I think you know what I mean.

 

Here's my solution for the umpteenth time: enforce current laws. They cover every possibility already, so why do we need more that only serve to infringe on the rights of the good guys while not affecting the bad guys in the slightest.

I fully agree with you that the existing laws should be more strictly enforced.  But I don't see it as a solution.  The old addage- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Even the strictest enforcement of existing laws would be no more than a few ounces of cure.  How do you suggest preventing gun crime?

So you do in fact believe that the rights of an individual trump the rights of the community?

I don't break laws. I don't hurt people. All I want to do is be able to protect myself.

That's the second time you've avoided my question.  Do you believe that the rights of the individual trump the rights of the community? Yes or No?

[Winston Legthigh]

I believe that some cities in California used registrations to confiscate guns. I also have heard Chicago used a long gun registry to confiscate semi automatic guns. I've only been told that, I'm sure people on here who live there can support or deny this.

Let's see, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Bermuda, Cuba, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia...have all used a registry to confiscate citizens privately owned guns.... So I'd say more than a 50% chance but I'm no statistician.

Weren't they confiscating registered guns in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina?

Your missing a rather crucial distinction with the countries you've cited - in all of those, private ownership of guns is outlawed. There's not even a suggestion of a repeal of the 2nd amendment in the US.

 

So are you taking about confiscation of legal or illegal firearms?

[JUDE]

I'm pretty sure that Canada's "long gun registry" has morphed into something they never intended it to when the legislation was passed.

 

The definition of banned firearms has been modified to include additional firearms that were not included in the original legislation, not through additional legislation by elected officials but by bureaucrats in charge of the agency in charge of the registry. This has resulted in confiscation of previously legal firearms from law-abiding citizen, so it does happen.

[Hixter]

So, why not require it beyond the first legal sale? Joe Citizen wants to legally sell his gun? Document and track it. Joe Citizen wants to sell it to Mr. Criminal? He'll do time for falsifying forms or for not submitting forms at all.

What about when Mr. Criminal buys a gun from Mr. Thug -- will he follow the law and submit to a background check?

 

Straw buyers currently go to a gun store, pass a background check, buy a gun legally and then sell it illegally to a bad guy. How would this additional layer of background checks stop this illegal transfer from happening? 

 

The more I read debates like this, the more I realize how truly scared some folks are.

I'm not at all scared; my life is very peaceful and I feel secure. This is the Internet, so call me a crybaby if it makes you feel better.

[Tweedling]

Your missing a rather crucial distinction with the countries you've cited - in all of those, private ownership of guns is outlawed. There's not even a suggestion of a repeal of the 2nd amendment in the US.

 

So are you taking about confiscation of legal or illegal firearms?

But were they illegal when the registry started? Such as New Zealand, Canada and Australia?

 

 

[Hixter]

Backfire, misfire.  I openly admit to being ignorant of the terminology.  I think you know what I mean.

I thought you were talking about a firearm firing backwards toward the user and couldn't understand how that could happen.

 

That's the second time you've avoided my question.  Do you believe that the rights of the individual trump the rights of the community? Yes or No?

I believe my right to protect myself is more important than anything the community does to protect me, yes. The community enacts traffic laws to protect us but if I'm facing a life-threatening medical emergency I'll break the speed limit and roll through stop signs to get to the hospital as quickly as possible.

[Ghost of Electricity]

 

 

I believe my right to protect myself is more important than anything the community does to protect me, yes.

If I had asked that question I would be satisfied with your answer.  But that's not the question I asked.  The question is (hopefully I'll avoid the typos this time) "Do the rights of the individual trump the rights of the community?"  Again, I ask for a simple answer: "Yes" or "No."

 

I'd also like to say thank you (no irony intended) for writing to your representatives.  We need more serious debate and more people participating in the democratic process. 

[Winston Legthigh]

What about when Mr. Criminal buys a gun from Mr. Thug -- will he follow the law and submit to a background check?

 

Straw buyers currently go to a gun store, pass a background check, buy a gun legally and then sell it illegally to a bad guy. How would this additional layer of background checks stop this illegal transfer from happening? 

 

The regulatory agency would ask Mr Strawman to renew his registration for his legally purchased firearm, much like a car license. He would reply "oh, I don't have it any more, err, um, it was stolen"

The regulatory agency would say "you never reported it as stolen, and now you are not able to ever purchase firearms again. License revoked."

 

Boom - one less straw man on the street. You're welcome.

 

 

But were they illegal when the registry started? Such as New Zealand, Canada and Australia?

 

I don't know what you're getting at - please explain. Laws change. Cocaine was once legal. Now it's not. I used to be able to buy Jarts. Now I can't. If I owned a gun, and that gun subsequently became illegal, I would participate in a buy-back program.

 

Are you expecting the 2nd amendment to be repealed?

[Hixter]

If I had asked that question I would be satisfied with your answer.  But that's not the question I asked.  The question is (hopefully I'll avoid the typos this time) "Do the rights of the individual trump the rights of the community?"  Again, I ask for a simple answer: "Yes" or "No."

That will never be a "yes or no" question. We're not a nation like North Korea where everyone is a drone in service to the collective. We're a nation of individuals who acknowledge the need for a government to provide services. One of the services that we pay for is security, and the various organizations do a reasonably good job of protecting us, but I would never rely solely on the government for my protection -- even more so if armed government agencies try to disarm me.

[Tweedling]

I don't know what you're getting at - please explain. Laws change. Cocaine was once legal. Now it's not. I used to be able to buy Jarts. Now I can't. If I owned a gun, and that gun subsequently became illegal, I would participate in a buy-back program.

 

Are you expecting the 2nd amendment to be repealed?

The guns were once legal, they were required to register the guns, then boom- they had to turn those guns in.

I would not participate in a buy back.

 

I am not expecting the 2nd amendment to be repealed but there are people, politicians who I'm sure would vote for it today. Im sure in the 1920's the people of New Zealand didn't think that their guns would become illegal either.

 

Cocaine.... Cocaine?! That's an interesting point.... Since its been illegal has it disappeared? Have the number of cocaine related crimes been reduced?

 

What is Jart? If its illegal I may try to find some...

[Hixter]

The regulatory agency would ask Mr Strawman to renew his registration for his legally purchased firearm, much like a car license. He would reply "oh, I don't have it any more, err, um, it was stolen"

The regulatory agency would say "you never reported it as stolen, and now you are not able to ever purchase firearms again. License revoked."

So now we're talking about a national registry and a national licensing scheme? Sounds like an expensive and unenforceable proposition, considering that there are 300 million guns in this nation and not even the government knows where most of them are.

[Winston Legthigh]

So now we're talking about a national registry and a national licensing scheme? Sounds like an expensive and unenforceable proposition, considering that there are 300 million guns in this nation and not even the government knows where most of them are.

OK, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

We have to start somewhere. I'm offering simple models to start to fix the problem of legit firearms ending up in illegit hands.  Is it a complete fix? no. Is it a law that law enforcment has asked for to be able to track gun ownership? Yes.

 

Yes it's a new governmental oversight. I do have a problem with that - Government is too big as is. Unenforceable? I don't see why that is - the current car registration scheme is enforceable.

 

The guns were once legal, they were required to register the guns, then boom- they had to turn those guns in.

I would not participate in a buy back.

 

I am not expecting the 2nd amendment to be repealed but there are people, politicians who I'm sure would vote for it today. Im sure in the 1920's the people of New Zealand didn't think that their guns would become illegal either.

 

Cocaine.... Cocaine?! That's an interesting point.... Since its been illegal has it disappeared? Have the number of cocaine related crimes been reduced?

 

What is Jart? If its illegal I may try to find some...

 A Jart is a lawn dart. Maybe that was the brand name. I remember my family having them when I was a kid.

 

Speaking of interesting points, let's talk about what an awful totalitarian regime that the poor New Zealanders have to live under. What with their All Blacks, and their sailing, and proposed laws to get rid of all housecats...

[Hixter]

Even Joe Biden has his doubts about more legislation:

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTyoppK_aDM[/media]

Unenforceable? I don't see why that is - the current car registration scheme is enforceable.

There aren't 300 million unregistered vehicles on our streets.

[Winston Legthigh]

There aren't 300 million unregistered vehicles on our streets.

 

Well then, we're proper fucked.

[KevinG]

Here's my solution for the umpteenth time: enforce current laws. They cover every possibility already, so why do we need more that only serve to infringe on the rights of the good guys while not affecting the bad guys in the slightest.

 

I would say that enforcement of current laws would be a great thing and would lead to less gun crime.  It is really too bad that NRA has constantly and methodically taken the teeth out of the AFT's ability to enforce current laws.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/

[Ghost of Electricity]

That will never be a "yes or no" question. 

Incorrect.  This is the fundamental philosophical question at stake here.  Your inability to answer a simple yes or no question speaks volumes about the fact that your arguments are built on a foundation which is neither solid nor consistent.  The fact this it is only one of several questions that have gone unanswered does the same.

[Hixter]

Your inability to answer a simple yes or no question speaks volumes about the fact that your arguments are built on a foundation which is neither solid nor consistent.  The fact this it is only one of several questions that have gone unanswered does the same.

Your repeated attempts to paint me into a corner despite my well-explained responses speak volumes about your inability to accept that people might have different views of the world.

 

Let's save some time here: Ok, I believe that an individual's rights trump those of the community.

 

Then you can say, "So your right to own a gun means that my children might get mown down by a psychopath at their school? You selfish, heartless bastard!"

 

Then I can say, "I was just kidding, I believe that the rights of the community trump those of the individual. By the way, our community is getting a little overcrowded, so your wife must submit to a government-mandated abortion."

 

Then you can say, "You heartless bastard! I have rights!