The Political Party

[gspointer]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

gspointer wrote:

---

---

I believe in California there is a law, or a bill, to make everyone with once legal guns, get rid of them.

---

Not sure what law that is you're talking about, but that doesn't really answer the question.

Paranoia of gun-nuts isn't a reason to not register guns.

---

and paranoia of "scary looking guns" isn't either.

[Invisible Hand]

Invisible Hand wrote:
The fact that somebody bought a gun from a family member or a friend doesn't tell us anything relevant about either party. Every loonbag who shot someone is somebody's relative or friend.
if it doesn't matter, why doesn't Obama call it the "father son loophole"?

Because that sounds like incest porn?

[guido61]

---

gspointer wrote:

---

---

and paranoia of "scary looking guns" isn't either.

---

There's no paranoia of "scary looking guns".   See, this is part of the problem you guys are having on this issue:  a complete inability to be mature and adult about it.

You say it's about the crazy people and that we need to do more to keep crazy people away from guns, but when push comes to shove you resist any suggestions that would do so.  As long as people like Wayne LaPierre are out there opposing any meaningful changes to current laws, the pro-gun side will just continue to look more and more crazy themselves.

Step up abilities to recognize and treat mental health issues?  Great!   But as long as nothing is done to make it more difficult for these crazy people to buy guns, it's doesn't matter HOW well we identify them. If they can just go on Craigslist and buy whatever gun they want from "family and friends", what does it matter if they've been put on a 'don't sell to' list?

And as far as "scary looking guns" goes?  Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that some of these crazy guys like scary looking guns.  So what's the point of appealing to that part of their nature?  How are any of us more "protected" by gun laws that make it easier for these people to get guns and make guns more appealing to them?  If a law-abiding citizen can protect themselves with an M1 just as well as with an AR-15, then maybe we DON'T need the AR-15s around if the only real difference between the two is that they better play into the insane fantasies of crazy young men.

Isn't that at least something to consider?

It's not about fear of any gun. I don't fear guns.  I don't know anybody who does.  I just want to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals to the best degree possible.   I would think responsible gun owners would agree.   But the more the issue gets discussed, the more it becomes clear that many gun owners aren't at all interested in being responsible.  

[quickie1]

---

rbstern wrote:

---

quickie1 wrote: 

Neither has the automobile.

---

Bad analogy.  Those two automobiles are separated by enormous technological change in materials science and mechanical engineering.

The M1 Carbine and the AR-15 share a much closer base of technology.  In fact, some gun companies have introduced redesigned versions of the AR-15 to make it work more like the M1 Carbine, in order to improve reliability.

---

Fair enough.....but polymer, improved ammunition, designs, etc......have all been implemented to make the weapon more user friendly as well as deadlier.

[mdwagner73]

---

Disemboweler wrote:

---

BA.Barcolounger wrote:

Times change.

Background checks are sorely needed and do not infringe on your rights.

---

Background checks are already in force. NICS is hilariously under-funded, many states do not fully report mantal disability to NICS, but despite this, the Newtown shooter was denied a firearms purchase becuse NICS worked. 

Background checks also do not address the problem of gun trafficking by organized crime, both on the high level cartels and the low level street gangs. 

What we need is better, more effective enforcement of laws already on the books.

---

You are incorrect.  The number 1 source of illegal guns are straw purchases and there is no federal gun trafficking law.  The most they can charge these people with are paperwork violations which don't carry sufficient penalties to deter the activity.  Enforcing the existing laws will do nothing to stop gun trafficking in the US.

[Disemboweler]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Disemboweler wrote:

---

---

It is impossible to try and reason with you.

I stated the NICS was underfunded and most states do not adequately report medical information to the NICS. I said we need better enforcement of what we already have,  point out that background checks would not stop the illegal procurement of weapons, and to you that means I don't support background checks?

---

That background checks won't stop illegal procurement is a red herring.  No one has ever claimed they would.   But you still haven't answered the question.

What do you have against expanding background checks.  I agree we need better enforcement of what we already have,  (That's true of most every law 'on the books'.)  But that still doesn't do anything about private sales.

What good is having better reported medical information if a crazy person can go to a gun show and buy as many guns as he wants with no check into his medical history?

---

You don't fucking get it, do you? That was a simple observation, and not a reason to either expand or discontinue them. It was not a rebuttal, especially since no one claimed they would stop illegal weapons procurement. It was a simple observation that another solution is needed.

I have nothing against expanding background checks, but my criteria for expansion would be regarding mental instability.

Regarding the "gun show loophole", I have no problems requiring background checks at gun shows. It could actually be an opportunity for an FFL to earn some extra cash charging transfer fees.

[guido61]

---

Disemboweler wrote:

I have nothing against expanding background checks, but my criteria for expansion would be regarding mental instability.

---

What does that mean?  How would that work?  What sort of expansion are you proposing?

[Disemboweler]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

So you're okay with keeping th AR -15 legal as long as cosmetic changes are made...  Nice.

---

I think the look of the gun IS an issue.  I think that's obvious.  These video game kids aren't going into the gun stores buying M1s.   Why?  The look doesn't appeal to their fantasies.  Even though the gun-experts tell us it's essentially the same gun.

Like the OP said, somethings changed in our society.   What do YOU think has changed?

---

Never played "Medal of Honor", huh?

Anyway. Look at the number of deaths from AR-15s, and then look at the number committed with handguns. There is a huge disparity. Going after guns that account for a very small number of deaths per year does not show a great degree of ideological consistency on your part. If you want to stop gun deaths, work on fixing handguns, you will do much more good.

[gspointer]

Dave, you are obsessed with AR's, you know they are but a decimal point in gun statistics. I also find it interesting when you frequently mention gun owners paranoia, yet find it childish when the gun paranoia of the antis is mentioned. Regarding the gun owners paranoia, you are aware that the Brady bunch has mentioned gun registration as a first step in disarming civilians. Now this would be more easily dismissed if they weren't the source of so many of the "facts" the antis are using. Now these "crazy gun owners" so many are trying to marginalize, I never hear about committing these atrocities.

If you want "honest discussion" stop using questionable statistics and terms, stop marginalizing and trying to misrepresent gun owners as crazy, drop the whole "ban AR's" mantra and look at the problem.

Suicides, not much you can do there, you might stop some
It is the inner city gangs and that whole culture is the bulk of the problem (ignoring the fact that it has been decreasing)
Mass killings are better addressed by looking at big Pharma and the psych industry.

Start talking about safe storage requirements, a background check that can be performed by private citizens that doesn't indicate weather or not a transfer occurred. Heck require private citizens to keep a sales record etc. regarding any gun they sell . (That would give the background check teeth)
T

[mdwagner73]

---

Disemboweler wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

So you're okay with keeping th AR -15 legal as long as cosmetic changes are made...  Nice.

---

I think the look of the gun IS an issue.  I think that's obvious.  These video game kids aren't going into the gun stores buying M1s.   Why?  The look doesn't appeal to their fantasies.  Even though the gun-experts tell us it's essentially the same gun.

Like the OP said, somethings changed in our society.   What do YOU think has changed?

---

Never played "Medal of Honor", huh?

Anyway. Look at the number of deaths from AR-15s, and then look at the number committed with handguns. There is a huge disparity. Going after guns that account for a very small number of deaths per year does not show a great degree of ideological consistency on your part. If you want to stop gun deaths, work on fixing handguns, you will do much more good.

---

I agree, an assault weapons ban is a waste of time.  The majority of firearm homicides are with handguns.  

[Disemboweler]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Disemboweler wrote:

I have nothing against expanding background checks, but my criteria for expansion would be regarding mental instability.

---

What does that mean?  How would that work?  What sort of expansion are you proposing?

---

Immunity from HIPAA liability for practitioners regarding the sharing of mental health information of potential buyers. Eliminate the possibility of a FOI request for this information.

If a gun owner has a mentally ill patient, they must keep their guns locked up and out of reach of the patient. 

I'm sure there are more things I could come up with after a little more research, but that's a good start.

[guido61]

---

Disemboweler wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

So you're okay with keeping th AR -15 legal as long as cosmetic changes are made...  Nice.

---

I think the look of the gun IS an issue.  I think that's obvious.  These video game kids aren't going into the gun stores buying M1s.   Why?  The look doesn't appeal to their fantasies.  Even though the gun-experts tell us it's essentially the same gun.

Like the OP said, somethings changed in our society.   What do YOU think has changed?

---

Never played "Medal of Honor", huh?

Anyway. Look at the number of deaths from AR-15s, and then look at the number committed with handguns. There is a huge disparity. Going after guns that account for a very small number of deaths per year does not show a great degree of ideological consistency on your part. If you want to stop gun deaths, work on fixing handguns, you will do much more good.

---

As you said you we're doing, I'm point out 'other' solutions.   Obviously dealing with assault-type rifles doesn't do anything about handguns.  Doesn't mean more can't be done about assault-type rifles though.  Just because they account for a small number of deaths doesn't make those deaths any less serious.

But background checks and registration would help with all guns.

We should do what we can where we can.  There's a lot that could be done.  There's no one-size-fits-all solution.  And nothing that will work overnight.   And a lot that could be done that would, in no way, infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

[Disemboweler]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Disemboweler wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

So you're okay with keeping th AR -15 legal as long as cosmetic changes are made...  Nice.

---

I think the look of the gun IS an issue.  I think that's obvious.  These video game kids aren't going into the gun stores buying M1s.   Why?  The look doesn't appeal to their fantasies.  Even though the gun-experts tell us it's essentially the same gun.

Like the OP said, somethings changed in our society.   What do YOU think has changed?

---

Never played "Medal of Honor", huh?

Anyway. Look at the number of deaths from AR-15s, and then look at the number committed with handguns. There is a huge disparity. Going after guns that account for a very small number of deaths per year does not show a great degree of ideological consistency on your part. If you want to stop gun deaths, work on fixing handguns, you will do much more good.

---

As you said you we're doing, I'm point out 'other' solutions.   Obviously dealing with assault-type rifles doesn't do anything about handguns.  Doesn't mean more can't be done about assault-type rifles though.  Just because they account for a small number of deaths doesn't make those deaths any less serious.

But background checks and registration would help with all guns.

We should do what we can where we can.  There's a lot that could be done.  There's no one-size-fits-all solution.  And nothing that will work overnight.   And a lot that could be done that would, in no way, infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

---

I would oppose any kind of electronic database, simply because that information can become compromised. A state registry would be acceptable, but only if done with low-tech methods. Micro-phish or micro-film would certainly reduce the danger of that information being compromised.

[quickie1]

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

Disemboweler wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

So you're okay with keeping th AR -15 legal as long as cosmetic changes are made...  Nice.

---

I think the look of the gun IS an issue.  I think that's obvious.  These video game kids aren't going into the gun stores buying M1s.   Why?  The look doesn't appeal to their fantasies.  Even though the gun-experts tell us it's essentially the same gun.

Like the OP said, somethings changed in our society.   What do YOU think has changed?

---

Never played "Medal of Honor", huh?

Anyway. Look at the number of deaths from AR-15s, and then look at the number committed with handguns. There is a huge disparity. Going after guns that account for a very small number of deaths per year does not show a great degree of ideological consistency on your part. If you want to stop gun deaths, work on fixing handguns, you will do much more good.

---

I agree, an assault weapons ban is a waste of time.  The majority of firearm homicides are with handguns.  

---

Unless of course, God forbid, one of your family members or friends were killed with one.

[guido61]

---

gspointer wrote:
Dave, you are obsessed with AR's,

No, I just use them as a shorthand.

you know they are but a decimal point in gun statistics.

Including but a decimal point of guns used for protection. Really, they add no value to our society.

I also find it interesting when you frequently mention gun owners paranoia, yet find it childish when the gun paranoia of the antis is mentioned.

Yes. It's both childish to speak of people being afraid of "scary looking guns" when that isn't the issue, and it's childish to be paranoid that registration will lead to confiscation. Seems the pro-gun side is childish a LOT.

Suicides, not much you can do there, you might stop some

If we could better identify at-risk individuals and make it more difficult for them to get guns, we'd probably do quite a bit. Suicide-by-gun far outweighs suicide-by-any-other-method in America. Not because people with guns attempt suicide more, but because when they DO attempt it with a gun, they are far more likely to be successful.

It is the inner city gangs and that whole culture is the bulk of the problem (ignoring the fact that it has been decreasing)
Mass killings are better addressed by looking at big Pharma and the psych industry.

Start talking about safe storage requirements, a background check that can be performed by private citizens that doesn't indicate weather or not a transfer occurred. Heck require private citizens to keep a sales record etc. regarding any gun they sell . (That would give the background check teeth)
T

---

I agree. That would require "universal" registration though. If every gun were registered like cars are, and people paid a small annual fee to keep the registration valid, then every time they sold a gun, they'd gladly fill out the proper paperwork so they wouldn't be the person paying the fee anymore. And the money collected from the fees could go to pay for keeping track of the registration. Being better able to track guns and sales would prevent a lot of crimes and certainly help in solving them as well.

[TIMKEYS]

The right to own fire arms is part of our constitiution.   You cant put a tax on it, just like you cant put a poll tax on voting.  

[gspointer]

Dave, cars are licensed to be used on roads. There is no registration requirement. I never have to do squat if I am a seller. At best it is the buyer that registers the car. You know what? I am fine with that. Make the buyer register the gun, just like a car, if he is going to use it on a publicly funded range. We can use tax dollars and funds from the Pittman-Roberts act to pay for them.

You are still extremely dishonest or obtuse in your childish manners though as evidenced by your response to me.

[gspointer]

Also sales, news reports etc. show they are a significant percentage of guns used in self defense. But never let a fact get in the way of a bad arguement. Perhaps you choose to ignore them because you don't feel they "needed" to use an AR.

[gspointer]

I am surprised I still have to bring up the cars to you after thoroughly disproving you in a previous thread. Citing your states laws, and your DMV. Let it go Dave.

[BA.Barcolounger]

As a seller you have to sign over the title of the car.