Quote :

"to all but the most ardent anti-gun mouth-breathers"

4/7/2013 11:32:55 AM

a mod trolling in the Soap Box? cool.

4/7/2013 12:06:59 PM

Quote :

"Laws don't mitigate illegal activity in any appreciable way; instead, they give us a way to deal with those who engage in activity that is socially undesirable."

To me this is hilarious to me.

4/7/2013 1:46:40 PM

well then clearly you are an ardent anti-gun mouth-breathers because its undeniably apparent!

[Edited on April 7, 2013 at 1:53 PM. Reason : ac]

4/7/2013 1:53:18 PM

^^
Burro has clearly never been to a country that has looser laws or worse law enforcement than us. So naive.

[Edited on April 7, 2013 at 1:58 PM. Reason : ]

4/7/2013 1:58:15 PM

if something is undeniably apparent, you don't need to travel

you also don't need to study, research, discuss, or consider because its undeniable!

4/7/2013 2:08:27 PM

^^^^ yeah, that part is dumb.

4/7/2013 2:44:27 PM

Quote :

"except that the states with the loosest gun laws have the most gun violence of those things "

wat?

4/7/2013 3:29:35 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-04/states-with-fewer-gun-laws-rank-among-most-violent-study-finds.html

4/7/2013 4:28:16 PM

maybe the people have guns because of the high violence

4/7/2013 4:30:02 PM

the article itself included a stronger rebuttal than that

4/7/2013 4:35:20 PM

I like how you guys parade around articles that have very little useful data in them.

When conservatives on this board try to do the same you expect them to basically present a thesis on it.

But no, it's perfectly acceptable for more liberal posters to basically say "guns are bad, here's a picture of Gabrielle Giffords, and states like Vermont don't count just because."

4/7/2013 5:04:40 PM

i presented real studies pages ago and no one responded

i'm still fact checking yours, they have some data that doesn't even make sense from what I can see (ie when i search for the statistic they quote i find a different result than they use, using the same source they cite) and also seem to conflate gun laws and number of guns which doesn't make sense in some of the places they do it. that leap is only reasonable at all in places with strong enforcement and some of the countries your study does that would never qualify as that. i'm still working through yours.

[Edited on April 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2013 5:10:39 PM

To be fair, it's not "my" study, and also, Jesus Christ I can't believe you're still reading it.

On another related note:

Did anyone see Piers Morgan vs. Larry Pratt back in January?

http://www.theendrun.com/larry-pratt-british-gun-crime-stats-a-sham

http://rboatright.blogspot.ru/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html

As long as we're taking a break from having to write a thesis on the materials we present here.

4/7/2013 5:25:52 PM

Quote :

"Burro has clearly never been to a country that has looser laws or worse law enforcement than us. So naive."

What does that have to do with it being undeniably true that simple ownership of a gun is not the worst thing in the history of mankind, much less is it socially undesirable.

4/7/2013 5:35:50 PM

^^i have a pretty open mind about this so i take anything i come across seriously and read it critically so i can use it all to form an opinion. as i learn more my opinion grows and changes. i don't just aaronburro things.

i haven't been working on the study you posted steadily, lately my time has been taken up by some courses for some work stuff. that study is still saved on the desktop with my notes for whenever i get to it again.

[Edited on April 7, 2013 at 5:36 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2013 5:36:02 PM

This is a great interview with Cody Wilson, the director of Defense Distributed:



It's really an insightful interview that I encourage anyone to watch. He's not your typical "gun nut"; his desire to move forward with weapon printing technology is really driven by what many would consider a leftist ideology.

4/11/2013 11:24:29 AM

doesn't look like Toomey-Manchin has the votes

4/17/2013 9:26:20 AM

Of course not.

Our NRA overlords did play this whole ordeal perfectly. Made that money for their constituents and nothing will change again.

[Edited on April 17, 2013 at 9:37 AM. Reason : X]

4/17/2013 9:36:17 AM

the congress critters just know what happened in '94 and they know it'll happen again

4/17/2013 9:44:00 AM

Quote :

"How can a proposal with the support of 90 percent of America, that recently enjoyed the passionate endorsement of the National Rifle Association and its current president get voted down? The short answer is: because that’s how American politics works. And the background check episode turns out to be a highly useful case study, because it single-handedly debunks many of the things people intuitively believe about our political system. If you were surprised at this result, let me explain why you shouldn’t have been:"

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/our-crappy-political-system-killed-gun-checks.html

4/17/2013 12:21:01 PM

90% of people don't agree with the proposed legislation.

90% of people may have agreed with expanded background checks, but that number is suspect.

It's not like the government is really going against the opinion of 90% of Americans. Some of us don't like legislation that creates felons out of people leaving their own damn houses.

[Edited on April 17, 2013 at 1:42 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2013 1:41:28 PM

4/17/2013 5:29:18 PM

[Edited on April 17, 2013 at 5:53 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2013 5:53:19 PM

Not really surprising, Senators don't care that 90% of Americans support this bill. They only care about what their own voters support, and if they live in red states, they'll vote against this.

Still, it's pretty fucking stupid that in the Senate, 46 > 54. It's their own damn fault for not changing the rules when they had the chance.

[Edited on April 17, 2013 at 6:12 PM. Reason : :]

4/17/2013 6:09:04 PM

4/17/2013 6:21:11 PM

i don't buy the 90% figure

4/17/2013 6:54:44 PM

Quote :

"the congress critters just know what happened in '94 and they know it'll happen again"

after all the electorate is just the same and hasn't had the experience of Gee Dubya Bastard

4/17/2013 7:04:34 PM

^^

2 questions:

1) why?

and

2) why are you opposed to universal background checks?

4/17/2013 7:13:41 PM

define "universal background check"

4/17/2013 7:32:15 PM

a background check that is performed during every cash-for-gun transaction

4/17/2013 7:35:10 PM

it's impossible to enforce without a gun registration, which is prohibited under federal law

4/17/2013 7:37:14 PM

there was nothing in the amendment about a national registration, seeing as how one would be banned by law

4/17/2013 7:55:02 PM

so you agree that it was unenforceable legislation?

4/17/2013 7:58:35 PM

I would say that it was neither universal nor enforceable.

4/17/2013 8:00:39 PM

Quote :

"Senators don't care that 90% of Americans support this bill. "

False. 90% of Americans did not support this bill. "90%" (wherever that number came from, which is suspect) supported some means of expanded background checks.

Maybe they shouldn't have started with a bill that made felons out of gun owners from the start.

4/17/2013 8:01:50 PM

no

the amendment only applied to gun show sales and internet sales

how is that unenforceable?

[Edited on April 17, 2013 at 8:02 PM. Reason : you guys do realize that only the amendment was voted on, right?]

4/17/2013 8:01:51 PM

that's right, it didn't cover all cash-for-gun transactions

the whole way the amendment was described by the media and politicians was very misleading. they say it would close the "gun show loophole". there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. if you buy from a licensed dealer, you go through a NICS check. if you buy from an individual, then you do not. doesn't matter if it's at a gun show or not. they made it sound like internet sales of guns do not go through NICS. some do. some don't. if i buy from an online dealer, they ship the gun to a licensed dealer near me, where i pick up the gun after NICS check. if i buy from an individual, i either meet them face-to-face and there is no NICS, but if they live too far away, they ship to a licensed dealer and the sale goes through NICS. the way i understood it, the amendment would've required that those face-to-face transactions that began in online classifieds listings (the TWW used gun thread, for example) involve NICS, which would mean going through a licensed dealer. now, tell me how it is possible to prove that i sold another twwer a firearm w/o NICS unless you have a list of who owns what.

i know you know this, duke. trying to break it down for the others.

4/17/2013 8:11:19 PM

Quote :

"you guys do realize that only the amendment was voted on, right?"

they also voted on feinstein's AWB amendment (killed), magazine capacity limits (killed), and a very pro-gun concealed carry reciprocity amendment (killed). it'll default to schumer's "universal background check" bill, which will never have enough support.

not that anything would've passed the house, anyway

4/17/2013 8:14:33 PM

none of that has anything to do with the Toomey-Manchin amendment, which is all I'm talking about

4/17/2013 8:18:32 PM

none of what?

have you read the toomey-manchin amendment?

4/17/2013 8:21:32 PM

people who say shit like "i don't believe the 90%" and give no reason for it are

and don't give me this shit about "this bill" vs "expanded background checks." you know damn well the people who say shit like that wouldn't believe a number like that no matter how specific you made the poll and how directly related any legislation was

[Edited on April 17, 2013 at 8:45 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2013 8:44:25 PM

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:sp715:

Quote :

"AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible and consistent background check process. "

there it is in all of its glory

which was voted for 54-46, but didn't reach enough votes to bypass a filibuster

4/17/2013 8:44:52 PM

the "pupose" section of a bill means nothing

absolutely nothing

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/152165893/Public-Safety-and-Second-Amendment-Rights-Protection-Act

the bottom of page 21 has the important stuff

4/17/2013 8:50:52 PM

(that was all that Senate.gov had to offer)

4/17/2013 8:59:04 PM

well now you've got it all, so read it

4/17/2013 8:59:36 PM

I have read it, and I have no idea what the issue is

and to pretend that this vote was based on anything other than fear of the NRA is ridiculous

4/17/2013 9:04:22 PM

the issue is it's not enforceable

and it certainly was because of the NRA. the grades the NRA gives politicians determine how a lot of americans vote. what's wrong with that? should we further limit the first amendment too?

[Edited on April 17, 2013 at 9:09 PM. Reason : dasf]

4/17/2013 9:06:57 PM

pretty defeatist attitude to take

so it's better to do nothing at all than to pass it and see?

4/17/2013 9:10:25 PM

if it makes me jump through more hoops and doesn't actually do anything, why should i support it?

4/17/2013 9:13:16 PM