It gave me information as to who I can and cannot have conversation.Originally Posted by The Rani
So how did that one work for you in this case?
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Posts
- 6,099
It gave me information as to who I can and cannot have conversation.So how did that one work for you in this case?
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
All gun sales. I think that's pretty clear. Whoever buys a gun, gets a background check. Period; no exceptions.
Background checks
background checks for all gun buyers in an attempt to close the so-called "gun-show loophole" that allows people to buy guns at trade shows and over the Internet without submitting to background checks.
http://web1.annarbor.com/news/obama-...rol-proposals/
88 percent of Americans support background checks on people buying guns at gun shows.
Proposals:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...als/index.html
Require universal background checks for all firearm sales.
Action Required By Congress
Send a letter from ATF to licensed dealers with guidance on how to facilitate background checks for private sellers.
Action Required By Obama administration
Direct U.S. attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun and make recommendations to ensure dangerous people aren't slipping through the cracks.
Action Required By Obama administration
Invest $20 million in fiscal year 2013 to give states stronger incentives to share background data.
Action Required By Obama administration
Hold federal agencies accountable for sharing reliable data with background check system.
Action Required By Obama administration
Remove barriers that prevent states from reporting information on people prohibited from gun ownership for mental health reasons.
Action Required By Obama administration
ClassicXer's comment in this case was just snark and sarcasm. It can't be debated or discussed in a practical manner. But it does express his point of view, which I gather is not in favor of gun control.
You associated me with immaturity and now you're playing a game.
It will help. No-one says it is the entire answer. If you are against this bill, you are in favor of loonies getting guns. That's my statement and I'm sticking with it.
You do realize that FFL holders already must run a background check for all internet and gun show sales right?
Oh wait, you didn't...
Clearly.
Fortunately sane and (more importantly) educated people know that the "gun show loophole" is actually just a euphemism used to make people believe something sinister is happening. What these gun-control folks really mean to say is that they don't like private transfers of firearms. In other words they feel that a father shouldn't be able to pass on a firearm to his children without the bureaucracy of a government sanctioned background check.
If you puchase a firearm from a vendor at a gun show or on the internet, you get a background check.
Hell, my .44 Magnum will shoot faster than one round a second (but by round number 2 the tree squirrels are fleeing for cover). A good bolt action rifle will do that too. As for "riddling victims with bullets" the AR-15 really isn't a very good tool if that is the sort of result you are looking for. You should be happy that mass murderers haven't figured out yet that a shotgun is far more deadly in close quarters.
That these murderers choose the AR-15 to do their deed has actually saved a few lives. Several of the recent shootings have ended when the gunman jammed an AR-15 and didn't know how to clear it (it can be a bit complicated).
ATF study in 1999
Has there been crack downs on "unscrupulous gun dealers" since the ATF study?
Why Universal Background Check May Be The Most Important Gun Control Measure There Is
The conclusion of the 1999 report was simple: Brady Act background checks have been successful in preventing felons and other prohibited people from buying firearms, but gun shows leave a major loophole.
Rather than conscientious unlicensed traders, the ATF found "unscrupulous gun dealers" who use "free-flowing market to hide their off-the-book sales."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/study...#ixzz2JcG1CocV
Last edited by Deb C; 02-01-2013 at 12:01 AM.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campa...-show-loophole
http://www.csgv.org/storage/document...OLE%20MEMO.pdfAn estimated 5,000 gun shows are conducted in the United States every year. Federal law mandates
that licensed dealers at these events perform background checks on purchasers before completing a sale.
There is an exemption in federal law, however, for private sales by individuals who are “not engaged in the
business” of selling firearms, or who only make “occasional” sales. The Gun Show Loophole allows these
unlicensed vendors to sell firearms at gun shows without conducting background checks on purchasers. To
date, only 17 states have acted on their own initiative to close the Gun Show Loophole.
Unregulated private sales at gun shows are a popular point-of-purchase for individuals prohibited under federal
law from buying firearms—including convicted felons, domestic abusers, drug addicts, fugitives from justice,
individuals adjudicated as mentally ill, illegal immigrants, and others who would be flagged and stopped by
criminal background checks. Additionally, gun shows are a common venue for “straw purchases” through
licensed dealers. In a straw purchase, a prohibited purchaser recruits an individual(s) with a clean criminal
record to pass a background check and purchase firearms for him/her. A straw purchase is a federal felony
offense for both the straw purchaser and the ultimate possessor of the firearms.
Recent research has confirmed that gun shows remain the setting for significant criminal activity. At the
same time, it has become apparent that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has no
formal plan for investigating the nation’s gun shows.
The ATF has identified gun shows as a major trafficking channel for
firearms, second only to corrupt federally licensed dealers. In an
analysis of 1,530 firearms trafficking investigations during the period
July 1996 through December 1998, gun shows were associated
with the diversion of approximately 26,000 illegal firearms.7 From
2004 to 2006, ATF conducted operations at just 195 gun shows
nationwide, but these operations resulted in 121 individual arrests
and 5,345 firearms seizures.8 Some examples of such operations
are as follows:
• Operation Flea Collar, a two-year investigation into illegal sales
at gun shows and flea markets in Alabama, culminated in the arrest of 11 individuals and the seizure of
more than 700 firearms. The ATF estimated that this group had trafficked approximately 70,000 firearms
over the last several decades. Those charged had previously sold 267 guns that were linked to homicides,
assaults, robberies, drug and sex crimes, and other illegal activities. One of these guns was used in the
attempted murder of a Chicago police officer.
• When ATF’s San Francisco Field Division cracked down on illegal guns being smuggled into California
from gun shows in Nevada, the operation resulted in the confiscation of over 1,000 firearms as well as
explosives.
• Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 guns purchased at gun shows in Richmond, Virginia, were later
recovered at crime scenes.
Gun shows are also a major source of crime guns beyond U.S. borders. Commenting on an investigation
conducted between 2004 and 2006, ATF’s Phoenix Field Division reported that “many [U.S.] gun shows
attracted large numbers of gang members from Mexico and California. They often bought large quantities of
assault weapons and smuggled them into Mexico or transported them to California.” It is estimated that
upwards of 80% of illegal firearms in Mexico come from the United States. James Ramey, a gun show
vendor from Texas, has described how gang members purchase firearms at gun shows in border cities: “They
send over a scout on Saturday to see if there’s anything they want, then they show up on Sunday with a big
wad of money and somebody who’s got a clean record, who’s legal to buy.”
(Little has changed since 2007 about the ease of getting firearms -- except the public mood a few weeks ago).
Not in every state.If you purchase a firearm from a vendor at a gun show or on the internet, you get a background check.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
I suppose that Copperfield thinks that I am a repressive person for believing that convicted felons, domestic abusers, drug addicts, fugitives from justice, individuals adjudicated as mentally ill, and illegal immigrants have no right to keep and bear arms.
I believe in law and order because without it all of the enumerated freedoms of the Constitution of the United States are moot.
President Obama, never known for coddling criminals, can hit Republicans from the Right on issues best described as Law and Order.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
That, of course, is not a statement on those who attend gun shows, or their political affiliation.
If wanting the earnings cap on FICA lifted more than wanting to take law-abiding citizens' guns away is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
If wanting the minimum wage tied to the Consumer Price Index more than wanting to take law-abiding citizens' guns away is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
If wanting there to be a super-majority vote in the Senate before the Federal Reserve can raise interest rates (as Ted Kennedy once proposed) more than wanting to take law-abiding citizens' guns away is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
If wanting a public option on health care more than wanting to take law-abiding citizens' guns away is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
If wanting ENDA passed (which would federally ban job and housing discrimination against gays) more than wanting to take law-abiding citizens' guns away is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
I probably missed one or two but I'm sure you get the idea.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.
Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!
Fine, but not relevant to today; since there is no proposal to take guns away from law-abiding citizens; though there is a great proposal to ban future sales of military weapons that law-abiding citizens don't need at all.
It's not true; people buy guns at gunshows and over the internet without getting a background check. That needs to stop. Talk about a something simple to understand; lots more simple than the question of whether science can say if evolution has a direction; lots and lots more simple.
No thanks. The AR-15 allowed Lanza to riddle school children with bullets, and ruin Gabby Gifford's life and career. You are just evading issues because you don't want to face the fact that you are obsessed with something that is clearly wrong and destructive.
I'll see your issues-and-campaigns paper and raise you an actual study from the Department of Justice. This 2001 study of inmates found that they purchased their firearms from a gun show a whopping 0.7% of the time. The biggest single source by contrast was the street/black market at ~40% (friends or family was a close second).
There is no special leniency for FFL holders in any state. That's why it is called a "Federal Firearms License." Private sales do not require a background check (unless explicitly stated otherwise by state law) and the NICS system isn't even available for use by private owners. Any dealer at a gun show who carries an FFL must run an NICS background check as though he were in his own shop. If he doesn't, he runs the risk of losing his license.
The BATF? You mean these guys?
I suppose we should all take heart that our "special" police forces seem to be largely populated by incompetents rather than the hardened killers a lot of states recruit.
Last edited by Copperfield; 02-01-2013 at 12:11 PM.
What I said is absolutely 100% true Eric. What needs to stop is your gleeful ignorance.
Have you ever bought a firearm at a gun show or over the internet? I have done both. So which one of us actually knows what happens?
Giffords wasn't shot with an AR-15.
Of course not. But an AR-15 let it happen!!
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
I know I have to ask mine for permission to go to the store sometimes, and I have to call the house if I am going to be out past dark.
Here Are the Patterns the Feds Found for U.S. Mass Killings
In an attempt to return the thread to actual issues and effective responses...
Source.
These are issues associated with mass killings (spree killers) which are a tiny, but sensational, subset of killings in the United States. Effective solutions to how to prevent/reduce spree killings, how to prevent/reduce accidental firearms deaths, how to prevent/reduce suicides, how to prevent/reduce general firearms related homicides will not be identical. These issues arise from different causes and have different costs.This is what a mass killer looks like, according to a Department of Homeland Security analysis. He works alone. He uses a semi-automatic handgun. He’s a he. And he probably didn’t serve in the U.S. military.
That’s the conclusion of a November 28 analysis by the New Jersey branch of the Department of Homeland Security’s partnership with state and local law enforcement. The so-called intelligence “Fusion Center” sifted through data on 29 major mass killings in the U.S. since 1999, starting with the Littleton, Colorado school shooting. Its practical advice is to be more concerned by your co-worker with the bad hygiene who mutters about putting his “things in order” than by the war veteran in the next cubicle.
The basic pattern found by the New Jersey DHS fusion center, and obtained by Public Intelligence(.PDF), is one of a killer who lashes out at his co-workers. Thirteen out of the 29 observed cases “occurred at the workplace and were conducted by either a former employee or relative of an employee,” the November report finds.
His “weapon of choice” is a semiautomatic handgun, rather than the rifles that garnered so much attention after Newtown (emphasis mine). The infamous Columbine school slaying of 1999 is the only case in which killers worked in teams: they’re almost always solo acts — and one-off affairs. In every single one of them, the killer was male, between the age of 17 and 49.
They also don’t have military training. Veterans are justifiably angered by the Hollywood-driven meme of the unhinged vet who takes out his battlefield stress on his fellow Americans. (Thanks, Rambo.) In only four of the 29 cases did the shooter have any affiliation with the U.S. military, either active or prior at the time of the slaying, and the fusion center doesn’t mention any wartime experience of the killers. Yet the Army still feels the need to email reporters after each shooting to explain that the killer never served.
It’s harder to construct patterns around shooter motives, the report notes, since in most cases the killer takes his own life or gets killed by law enforcement before publicizing his reasons for violence. But DHS warns that “indicators of potential violence” include a worker’s abrupt and persistent absenteeism; “escalation of domestic problems into the workplace; talk of severe financial problems”; a notable decline in “attention to appearance and hygiene”; unsolicited empathy with the perpetrators of mass violence; and vocalized musings about suicide. The fusion center doesn’t offer more granular data.
The data comes as the country begins a renewed, heated debate about the relationship between mass-casualty events and easy access to guns. The Senate Judiciary Committee will explore the question in a Wednesday morning hearing that follows on a series of gun-control proposals pushed by President Obama in the wake of last month’s Newtown, Connecticut elementary school massacre. It’s worth noting that the fusion center study doesn’t mention the circumstances under which the shooter obtained his guns.
One of the most striking patterns about U.S. mass killings is visible only through its absence. Terrorists aren’t committing these crimes. Ordinary, unhinged American men are. That’s despite an inability for federal law enforcement to track stockpiled firearms and literally years of al-Qaida sympathizers and propagandists urging disaffected U.S. Muslims to rise up against their neighbors (emphasis mine).
Those of you that think simply passing legislation banning something will answer the mail are probably making the same mistake the United States government / military made in Iraq II. Borrowing someones else's (Grant Martin's) words (source) who was indirectly critiquing said mistake:
Eric - your proposed solution appear simplistic and disconnected from the realities of a complicated set of problems.Because humans are unpredictable and enough of them thrown together to be called a population group exhibit very complex behavior, operations involving influencing population groups is seen as very complex. These situations require a different approach than, say, an operation limiting itself to influencing a division of enemy troops (although one should quickly protest that divisions of enemy troops are made up of humans too…). Moreover, if one's involvement with said population group is difficult to connect to one's interests and the scope of the operation seems to be unlimited, then it makes sense that a different approach may be warranted.
In order to address a situation wherein one does not acknowledge that one does not understand the situation, the early Design thinkers realized that a philosophical change was needed, and that the first step was to understand the current philosophy[14] that defined the military and kept us from acknowledging our ignorance in certain matters.
Many realized that the current philosophy of the military was wholly incompatible with dealing with uncertain situations. This philosophy was positivism: a discredited philosophy that few disciplines have followed since the mid-Twentieth Century.[15] This philosophy holds that one can understand how the world works- to include complex adaptive entities like population groups- by simply asserting a universal law and then observing and gathering data that will either assist in proving or disproving one’s hypothesis. It not only assumes there are universal laws for all entities, but also that we can discover these laws through data gathering and deductive analysis. This, of course, goes a long way towards explaining the military’s fascination with metrics and grandiose processes that purport to be able to predict decisive results.[16]
Instead of the military’s current philosophy, these thinkers supported a turn to one that most of the rest of the science world has already turned to since about the time of the development of the concept of Quantum Mechanics, and that is postpositivism. Postpositivism, not to be confused with post-modernism, is a philosophy that acknowledges the difficulties with measuring and gathering data on and assigning universal laws to such abstract notions as “insurgencies” and especially complex and adaptive entities like humans and social populations.
Unfortunately, the military did not accept several key findings of the original Design thinkers: 1) that we do not acknowledge our own ignorance in uncertainty, 2) that the solution requires a change in the military’s philosophy (emphasis mine), and 3) that the foundational literature of Design concludes numbers 1 and 2
Copperfield - there probably exists some set of policy measures (gun control regulations) that could positively impact the problems listed above. In my opinion, it would be unethical not to try to make significant improvements in answering these problems, even if the Second Amendment needs some reinterpretation.
Ryan Heilman '68
-Math is the beginning of wisdom.
A brief moment of humor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz2jb...layer_embedded#!
Warning: Possible NSFW language.
Why wasn't an AR-15 present to defend her? You'd think a politician her age would understand that the world has dangerous people who have access to guns who could show up at anytime and start killing people.
