Gun control toast

wjk · Apr 17, 2013

Quote from Ricter:

It was a bill that, in part, expanded background checks to gun shows and internet sales, so that crazy people would have a tougher time getting guns. Everyone agrees that crazy people should not have guns.

Really? Why so many pages in the bill? How many pages would it take to deal with the side of the issue you claim?

Show me a simple bill to deal with a part of an issue, and I might side with you.

wjk · Apr 17, 2013

Quote from Lucrum:

90% of the population and 80% of republicans are obviously unaware that the vast majority of guns used in crimes are stolen. No amount of background checks is going to affect that.

These numbers are bullshit. If they weren't, the bill would have sailed.

Lucrum · Apr 17, 2013

Quote from wjk:

These numbers are bullshit. If they weren't, the bill would have sailed.

Consider the source. Rectum, known for drunkenness and lying.

Ricter · Apr 17, 2013

Quote from Eight:

I know gun sellers, they don't sell to somebody they think is crazy. They don't sell to somebody that is talking about shooting somebody, etc...

But if the seller's judgement is off today, for whatever reason, or maybe the crazy guy is a good actor, the (gun show or internet) seller has, thanks to today's vote, no legal obligation to double-check, to "trust but verify". So if they fuck up, no hazard.

Consider pilots. How do they protect themselves and others from the "off day"? With the use of checklists, flight plans, and other regulations, many of which were probably advocated by... pilots.

wjk · Apr 17, 2013

Quote from Ricter:

Yes, and it is not, thanks to today's vote, a requirement to check if a documented insane person is trying to illegally buy a weapon at a gun show or over the internet.

I agree with keeping weapons out of sick people's hands. Here's my problem. Not long ago, many on your side in power, in the media, and in this very forum began a vicious assault on tea party individuals, conservatives, and in some case libertarians. Now since some of those in power, including the prez, couldn't hide their disdain for "tea baggers", as they liked to call them, who's to say that those in power wouldn't try and find a way to qualify them for a mental illness of some sort. You see where I'm going with this? Or do you trust your gov not to do such things?

Ricter · Apr 17, 2013

Quote from wjk:

I agree with keeping weapons out of sick people's hands. Here's my problem. Not long ago, many on your side in power, in the media, and in this very forum began a vicious assault on tea party individuals, conservatives, and in some case libertarians. Now since some of those in power, including the prez, couldn't hide their disdain for "tea baggers", as they liked to call them, who's to say that those in power wouldn't try and find a way to qualify them for a mental illness of some sort. You see where I'm going with this? Or do you trust your gov not to do such things?

Actually, I've mentioned the down side of the "character based" massacre suppression approach before.

Ricter · Apr 17, 2013

Quote from wjk:

These numbers are bullshit. If they weren't, the bill would have sailed.

Not to mention that the impossibility of achieving perfection is no excuse for not attempting improvement.

wjk · Apr 17, 2013

Quote from Ricter:

Not to mention that the impossibility of achieving perfection is no excuse for not attempting improvement.

Too many in power have stated what their true intent is. They wreck the legitimate side of the argument with that. Everything else is bullshit. Simply stated, they cannot be trusted regarding their intent (such as, "if it saves a single life").

Lucrum · Apr 17, 2013

Quote from Ricter:

Consider pilots. How do they protect themselves and others from the "off day"? With the use of checklists, flight plans, and other regulations, many of which were probably advocated by... pilots.

You really should stick to something you know something about. Rye whiskey and the beaches at Orlando maybe.

Ricter · Apr 17, 2013

Quote from wjk:

Too many in power have stated what their true intent is. They wreck the legitimate side of the argument with that. Everything else is bullshit. Simply stated, they cannot be trusted regarding their intent (such as, "if it saves a single life").

Would you trade a requirement for a gun seller to check a "crazies database" for a relaxation on weapon style and magazine size, as PB suggested?