Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146,164]

[TurtleDude]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

No, MORE guns in the hands of people who would use them for harm is bad.

Less guns is neutral. If no one had a gun, then no one would die from a gun.

And that's what I support.

Not at all. Nothing I suggested earlier in this thread would do anything to prevent you as a law-abiding citizen from having a gun.

It had everything to do with it, because Federalist's post assumed what I'd like to see had anything to do with guns already owned and it didn't.

If no one had guns you'd be at the mercy of 20 year old steroid addicted nut cases

and your parsing words doesn't work. people intending to do bad with a gun have already violated the law and hence are NOT LAW ABIDING

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146

Nations similar to us? Which ones?

First world/developed countries.

There is no country that can be closely associated to the United States in demographic make up.

I'm not sure if I agree necessarily, but I won't argue the point. However, there are many countries which are much closer to the United States in terms of status as a developed country and the advantages that status bring.

The United States has 310 million people. The 3rd most populace nation on the planet. The only places higher are much more homogenous in nature and have been so for MUCH longer (And also with vastly different governments).

A revealing map of the world

So to compare relatively homogenous societies to the United States automatically handicaps us. You also must understand size. We have 795K police for a population of 310 million. That is an extreme handicap as well. The UK has 307 police per 100k to our 256. A crippling statistic if you consider places like Detroit.

I have no problem with more law enforcement.

Gun control is not the only approach. But it most certainly IS something which needs to be addressed. I fully recognize there are other factors, but to blame other factors and say we don't have a problem with guns is simply false. If you came upon a man lost in the desert for 3 days with no supplies, would you say, "Well, he hasn't eaten, so let's give him food and nothing else"? Of course not, you'd give him food and shelter and medical attention.

It doesn't have to be just one answer, it can be many different answers, all of which can play a part in helping solve the problem.

You also cannot measure ONLY gun homicide.

Actually we can, since it is the overwhelming method of homicide.

That is not the issue. It is homicide in general. Homicide has been at a steady drop for a while now.

Because laws have been increasingly passed to address the situation. But with the overwhelming evidence guns are more responsible for homicide than anything else, doesn't it make sense to pass laws on those as well?

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

If no one had guns you'd be at the mercy of 20 year old steroid addicted nut cases

No I wouldn't. But even if I were, I'd much more like my chances than if that same nut fired a gun at my head.

and your parsing words doesn't work. people intending to do bad with a gun have already violated the law and hence are NOT LAW ABIDING

And I'm arguing for passing legislation which makes it difficult for those intending to do harm to have the means to do so. That's not parsing words, that's just simple logic.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146

First world/developed countries.

I'm not sure if I agree necessarily, but I won't argue the point. However, there are many countries which are much closer to the United States in terms of status as a developed country and the advantages that status bring.

I have no problem with more law enforcement.

Gun control is not the only approach. But it most certainly IS something which needs to be addressed. I fully recognize there are other factors, but to blame other factors and say we don't have a problem with guns is simply false. If you came upon a man lost in the desert for 3 days with no supplies, would you say, "Well, he hasn't eaten, so let's give him food and nothing else"? Of course not, you'd give him food and shelter and medical attention.

It doesn't have to be just one answer, it can be many different answers, all of which can play a part in helping solve the problem.

Actually we can, since it is the overwhelming method of homicide.

Because laws have been increasingly passed to address the situation. But with the overwhelming evidence guns are more responsible for homicide than anything else, doesn't it make sense to pass laws on those as well?

people are responsible for homicides

nothing you have proposed will make us safer-

most of those who claim they want to solve a problem see the problem as conservatives owning guns rather than criminal misuse

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146

First world/developed countries.

I'm not sure if I agree necessarily, but I won't argue the point. However, there are many countries which are much closer to the United States in terms of status as a developed country and the advantages that status bring.

I have no problem with more law enforcement.

Gun control is not the only approach. But it most certainly IS something which needs to be addressed. I fully recognize there are other factors, but to blame other factors and say we don't have a problem with guns is simply false. If you came upon a man lost in the desert for 3 days with no supplies, would you say, "Well, he hasn't eaten, so let's give him food and nothing else"? Of course not, you'd give him food and shelter and medical attention.

It doesn't have to be just one answer, it can be many different answers, all of which can play a part in helping solve the problem.

Actually we can, since it is the overwhelming method of homicide.

Because laws have been increasingly passed to address the situation. But with the overwhelming evidence guns are more responsible for homicide than anything else, doesn't it make sense to pass laws on those as well?

Then would you agree that our disagreement is upon the issue of the role firearms play within crime in general? Not trap. I just want it to be clearly stated so that it can keep a record straight for the mods so they see we are engaged in polite discussion

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

No I wouldn't.

And I'm arguing for passing legislation which makes it difficult for those intending to do harm to have the means to do so. That's not parsing words, that's just simple logic.

sadly, every proposal made to do that ends up harassing good people far more than impeding bad people.

so you think a society that has no guns would be safe for you.

and since you keep talking about such legislation go ahead and propose something that both meets tests of logical consistency and have empirical proof of being effective

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146

Then would you agree that our disagreement is upon the issue of the role firearms play within crime in general?

I would disagree with the idea you seem to be putting forth that the relatively easy availability of firearms has little to do with gun related homicides. I agree there are many factors which play into it. But one of those factors is the relatively easy availability of firearms.

I answered that way because I wasn't quite sure what you meant by the role firearms play.

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

sadly, every proposal made to do that ends up harassing good people far more than impeding bad people.

No, it doesn't.

Let's say I'm going to buy a gun for someone else so they can use it for a crime. Now, we both already know what I'm doing is a crime, but it's a crime that is very difficult to prove and impossible to stop right now. Under my idea, in order to buy a gun for someone else, I'd have to go through (let's say 10 hours of) training. I'd have to register the gun in my name. If that gun was used in a crime, I would be responsible for it. I could say it was "stolen" but what credibility do I have if three guns end up "stolen" and used in a crime? If I then tried to pass ownership to someone else the legal way (transferring ownership through registration) then that person would be subject to a background check, and that would protect me from unknowingly giving a gun to a potential criminal.

It doesn't harass anyone so much as it makes it more difficult for those who would obtain guns for bad purposes.

so you think a society that has no guns would be safe for you.

No, I mean a society with no guns would have no gun related deaths. And as of right now, there is no easier way to kill someone than using a gun.

proof of being effective

You keep mentioning this, and yet we have thousands of people murdered and many more thousands killed by guns every year. As of right now, we have definitive proof what we are doing is NOT working.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

No, it doesn't.

Let's say I'm going to buy a gun for someone else so they can use it for a crime. Now, we both already know what I'm doing is a crime, but it's a crime that is very difficult to prove and impossible to stop right now. Under my idea, in order to buy a gun for someone else, I'd have to go through (let's say 10 hours of) training. I'd have to register the gun in my name. If that gun was used in a crime, I would be responsible for it. I could say it was "stolen" but what credibility do I have if three guns end up "stolen" and used in a crime? If I then tried to pass ownership to someone else the legal way (transferring ownership through registration) then that person would be subject to a background check, and that would protect me from unknowingly giving a gun to a potential criminal.

It doesn't harass anyone so much as it makes it more difficult for those who would obtain guns for bad purposes.

No, I mean a society with no guns would have no gun related deaths. And as of right now, there is no easier way to kill someone than using a gun.

You keep mentioning this, and yet we have thousands of people murdered and many more thousands killed by guns every year. As of right now, we have definitive proof what we are doing is NOT working.

that is harassment of law abiding people.

crime is going down and the number of guns is going up

So your concerns are without support

 

[American]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

100% of the nation includes every gun show that sells firearms. So you are lying.

Prove he's lying.

 

[American]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

You are not making sense.

YOu are not reporting my posts accurately.

You are taking the side of a liar.

I clearly stated that the idea that somebody stating that we have background truths is only partially truthful but is also partially a lie if it is just left out there without acknowledgment that one can purchase firearms without a background check.

What part about that do you fail to comprehend?

I little suggestion to you. Don't tell me how to deal with the intellectually dishonest. I will do it in my own manner and in my own way.

What's the difference between your own manner and your own way?

 

[American]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

Do I really need to define this for you? ATF already defines private sales...

Ask him to define "infringed".

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

Prove he's lying.

easy - 100% by definition is everything..... all. Gun shows and private sales are not included in those background searches so the 100% is a lie.

14 seconds start to finish.

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146

easy - 100% by definition is everything..... all. Gun shows and private sales are not included in those background searches so the 100% is a lie.

14 seconds start to finish.

At what point did I claim that we had background checks on 100% of the firearms sales? Can you quote me post number and the words? Verbatim?

 

[American]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

easy - 100% by definition is everything..... all. Gun shows and private sales are not included in those background searches so the 100% is a lie.

14 seconds start to finish.

Show where he said that private sale are included. BTW, I purchased a gun at a gun show, and a background check was conducted.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

Show where he said that private sale are included. BTW, I purchased a gun at a gun show, and a background check was conducted.

100% - the claim of the poster - by its very definition includes everything - that is what 100% means - it takes in all, it includes everything .

The fact that they did a check on you does not negate the reality that the law allows for sales without it.

 

[American]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

100% - the claim of the poster - by its very definition includes everything - that is what 100% means - it takes in all, it includes everything .

The fact that they did a check on you does not negate the reality that the law allows for sales without it.

I didn't say 100% and you called me a liar. You are so desperate I can smell it from here. You've yet to prove I'm a liar, or anyone else in this debate for that matter. Your premises are continually destroyed by anyone that happens along. Your debate tactics are a fail.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

I didn't say 100% and you called me a liar. You are so desperate I can smell it from here. You've yet to prove I'm a liar, or anyone else in this debate for that matter. Your premises are continually destroyed by anyone that happens along. Your debate tactics are a fail.

the term 100% has been tossed around repeatedly by stonewall. Even to the point where he tosses out the number with additional words to explain it. Your sin of intellectual fraud was to pretend that you were stating the fact about background checks when you were only telling a half truth and omitting the rest of the actual story.

Yes, we have background checks for some firearm purchases and we do NOT have them for others. That is where your dishonesty came to play and where it was exposed.

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146

the term 100% has been tossed around repeatedly by stonewall. Even to the point where he tosses out the number with additional words to explain it. Your sin of intellectual fraud was to pretend that you were stating the fact about background checks when you were only telling a half truth and omitting the rest of the actual story.

Yes, we have background checks for some firearm purchases and we do NOT have them for others. That is where your dishonesty came to play and where it was exposed.

That isn't a quote of what I said. That is your paraphrase...which is wrong.

 

[Federalist]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

No it doesn't. In fact, it doesn't even come close. You're not entitled to property you do not own and your liberty does not extend to property not yet purchased.

Liberty is the right to do what you want with your body and your property but not with other people's bodies or property.

Of course one is not entitled to property one doesn't own, but I'm talking about property one DOES own. You want to restrict the ability to own certain property and to act in certain ways, thus you want to violate the property of others.

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146

the term 100% has been tossed around repeatedly by stonewall. Even to the point where he tosses out the number with additional words to explain it. Your sin of intellectual fraud was to pretend that you were stating the fact about background checks when you were only telling a half truth and omitting the rest of the actual story.

Yes, we have background checks for some firearm purchases and we do NOT have them for others. That is where your dishonesty came to play and where it was exposed.

I am still waiting for a direct quote with a post number..?.?.?.?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

Liberty is the right to do what you want with your body and your property but not with other people's bodies or property.

Of course one is not entitled to property one doesn't own, but I'm talking about property one DOES own. You want to restrict the ability to own certain property and to act in certain ways, thus you want to violate the property of others.

he seems to claim that if you wish to purchase a firearm and cannot-even if someone else is willing to sell you one (hard to buy something if no one has the property for sale) that is not the same violation of your rights as if you are prevented from keeping something you already own.

its much like the silly argument that if you own ONE gun your second amendment rights remain intact forever no matter what the government does even though it is quite obvious that the BoR limits GOVERNMENT action rather than affirmatively is based on what the citizens have done or could do

preventing a willing buyer from obtaining a weapon from a willing seller is just as much a violation as confiscating a weapon already owned

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

easy - 100% by definition is everything..... all. Gun shows and private sales are not included in those background searches so the 100% is a lie.

14 seconds start to finish.

There are background checks at gun shows too...not a 100% of sales at guns shows are private sales...

Guess that makes you a liar?

Seriously,, stop already.

 

[Federalist]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

he seems to claim that if you wish to purchase a firearm and cannot-even if someone else is willing to sell you one (hard to buy something if no one has the property for sale) that is not the same violation of your rights as if you are prevented from keeping something you already own.

its much like the silly argument that if you own ONE gun your second amendment rights remain intact forever no matter what the government does even though it is quite obvious that the BoR limits GOVERNMENT action rather than affirmatively is based on what the citizens have done or could do

preventing a willing buyer from obtaining a weapon from a willing seller is just as much a violation as confiscating a weapon already owned

Not exactly sure what he is claiming. But, given that liberty is the right to do what you want with your body and your property but not with other people's bodies or property, I can't see how he can think it is consistent with liberty to tell other people what they can do with their property.

And I agree with your last point: Doing what you want with your property certainly includes transferring the ownership of that property to another person, at which point it becomes his property. Preventing someone from giving his property to another person IS a violation of liberty.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146

That isn't a quote of what I said. That is your paraphrase...which is wrong.

Quoting you would embarrass you since it was so poorly written. I tried to show some sensitivity for your feelings. But I got it right just the same.

but since you asked nicely

You admit that there is a system that is 100 in existence, and while it may not pertain to ALL purchases, it does in fact exist?

100% is 100% - all - everything - the whole firearms business. And it is NOT covered by background checks.