So the Whitehouse is using a seriously flawed "study" (this has been pointed out before) to come up with a 40% number. Highly Suspect 40%
California requires background checks for all firearms transactions, including those conducted between private individuals. I bet there aren't any more criminals using guns there. Right?
They aren't getting them legally in Cali from the internet because it is illegal for anyone except a federally licensed firearms business to sell, buy, trade, or transfer a firearm across state lines. United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, Section 922
So, how is that happening? Oh, are they breaking the law? Where are the prosecutions?
"A 1997, revised in 2002, Justice Department survey of more than 18,000 state and federal convicts revealed the truth:
• 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member • 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source • 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show • 1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market • 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop • 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets
Note that less than 9 percent of all guns obtained by criminals in this survey came from retail outlets, hardly “a lot” compared to the almost 40 percent of convicts who obtained guns from friends or family or the almost 40 percent who obtained them illegally on the street. The gun-show loophole? Less than 1 percent of criminal guns came from gun shows."
Huh. All this energy and lying to address a very small percentage of the problem? The 80% problem is already illegal (Straw Purchases and Black Market) Just another beat down of the ignorance around gun control and Democrap ideas. I will say it again, if you have to lie about every position you take, you might have a problem....and you do.
Considering that attempting to purchase a firearm when you are a prohibited person is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment - where are the convictions for these 2 million offenders?
No convictions? Then you really shouldn't be masturbating in public.
Yup, the large majority of those "denied" were incorrectly denied, as well. The real crime here is that only an incredibly tiny percentage of actual felons properly denied a firearm were ever prosecuted for trying to buy one. Lets try to actually do even a half-assed attempt at enforcing the laws we have now before adding new ones based on bogus stats.
{whine}"But it's for the Children! Don't you care about the Children? And the grieving parents of Newtown? We have to pass these laws that could not have prevented Newtown ... because of Newtown!"{/whine}
I'm mocking you, asshole. And I would tell each and every one of the parents of a Newtown parent that none of the proposed laws would've prevented it, because that's just the facts as admitted by your own side. And that I think it's pathetic for people like you to use cheap emotionalism to pass wrongheaded laws as quickly as possible, and to try to silence opposition with such bathos. Which is the same thing I said about the fucking Patriot Act, and which I would've said then and would still say now to the relatives of the victims on 9/11. Got it, asshole? Or do you need to be taunted again?
Larry, the first problem you have is that you are an asshole. Or, at least, behaving like one. That's what adolescents do when they are insecure, things don't go their way, and they don't know how to solve problems. They just act like a dick.
I am trying solve problems like this and you're simply throwing around accusations because you are impotent and don't know what else to do. There are plenty of things that could have been done to prevent Newtown. The first would have been to not allow a nutball like Adam Lanza near a gun. With more serious mental health screenings in place, his mom would have not been allowed to try "make him a man" and let him use guns.
And I get that you are making fun of me, Larry. That's what all you guys do. But the comments sections of blogs is the only place where say this kind of shit because it's all you have left. You know full well how awful this sentiment is and how much you would hurt the parents of these victims should you share this kind of garbage with them.
And you won't because you, and the others, are cowards at the end of the day.
I am trying solve problems like this and you're simply throwing around accusations because you are impotent and don't know what else to do.
Uh, we know you are trying to solve problems and we are telling you why your solutions don't address the problem and are not and will not work. Then you continue to push them even though almost EVERYONE including the gun control crowd acknowledge they won't work. Yet here you are pushing that stupidity and crying about us getting irritated. How about learn a bit and stop pushing ignorant ideas? Funny enough, we want to solve the same problem. You act like a kid trying to push a square block through a round hole, we tell you it won't work, and then saying it will work and trying again...repeat ad nauseum.
Fact is, nothing proposed would have helped in any rampage. They would have passed background checks, universal or not. They didn't get their guns from Gun shows or flea markets or over the internet. They bought them legally or stole them.
We have ample examples of various gun laws throughout the US from lax to outright bans and can see the results. Bans don't work. Gun registration is only useful after a crime is committed, not prevention. Limited magazines only helps criminals. The list goes on forever. You and most of the gun control people (control-lite to banners) are all going down the wrong path. We know it, we have evidence to back it up, we have shown it to you, and still you push ignorant ideas. Why is that?
Mark, my problem is only that I don't think your solutions will be any more effective than the 1994 AWB. They couldn't have prevented Newtown. Or if you think they would've, you have yet to explain HOW they would've despite repeated requests to do so. You simply beg the question. And I sure as fuck don't appreciate insinuations and direct accusations that I don't care about children, or even that I want them killed. That is an asshole argument, and trying to use emotional blackmail to shut down debate. What goes around comes around. Capiche, asshole?
The central problem with you guys is that it never occurs to you that you could be wrong. This is true with just about every issue. Worse, when you are shown to be wrong, you retreat into some sort of bizarro world where you make believe that you are right through verbal gymnastics and cherry picked data. The result is that you are "never wrong."
That's what's going to happen with the new gun laws. In reality, they will be effective and save lives. In your world, they never will.
Yeah, right, says the person who cannot explain HOW the laws he wants would actually work (just that they WILL -- if only you have faith). We were told the same thing about the 1968 gun laws. Crime and murders continued to climb. We were told exactly the same thing about the 1994 AWB. And it failed utterly to have any measurable effect. Crime and murder rates had started to fall years earlier and continued their steady decline. We were told there would be blood in the streets when it expired. There wasn't. Murders are continuing to go down. We were told liberalized concealed carry would result in Wild West shootouts everywhere. They didn't didn't. Such a dizzying track record of successfully predicting the results of legislation your side has amassed.
And when the legislators pushing it are for the most part utterly clueless about what they're actually legislating, it's supposed to inspire confidence?
Says the guy who thinks that passing a law that requires all commercial gun sales to have a background check will make us safer than what exists today - which is that all commercial gun sales require a background check......
14 comments:
So the Whitehouse is using a seriously flawed "study" (this has been pointed out before) to come up with a 40% number.
Highly Suspect 40%
California requires background checks for all firearms transactions, including those conducted between private individuals. I bet there aren't any more criminals using guns there. Right?
They aren't getting them legally in Cali from the internet because it is illegal for anyone except a federally licensed firearms business to sell, buy, trade, or transfer a firearm across state lines. United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, Section 922
So, how is that happening? Oh, are they breaking the law? Where are the prosecutions?
So how do they get them?
"A 1997, revised in 2002, Justice Department survey of more than 18,000 state and federal convicts revealed the truth:
• 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member
• 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source
• 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show
• 1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market
• 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop
• 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets
Note that less than 9 percent of all guns obtained by criminals in this survey came from retail outlets, hardly “a lot” compared to the almost 40 percent of convicts who obtained guns from friends or family or the almost 40 percent who obtained them illegally on the street. The gun-show loophole? Less than 1 percent of criminal guns came from gun shows."
Huh. All this energy and lying to address a very small percentage of the problem? The 80% problem is already illegal (Straw Purchases and Black Market) Just another beat down of the ignorance around gun control and Democrap ideas. I will say it again, if you have to lie about every position you take, you might have a problem....and you do.
Considering that attempting to purchase a firearm when you are a prohibited person is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment - where are the convictions for these 2 million offenders?
No convictions? Then you really shouldn't be masturbating in public.
Yup, the large majority of those "denied" were incorrectly denied, as well. The real crime here is that only an incredibly tiny percentage of actual felons properly denied a firearm were ever prosecuted for trying to buy one. Lets try to actually do even a half-assed attempt at enforcing the laws we have now before adding new ones based on bogus stats.
{whine}"But it's for the Children! Don't you care about the Children? And the grieving parents of Newtown? We have to pass these laws that could not have prevented Newtown ... because of Newtown!"{/whine}
Larry, if you truly have the courage of your convictions, I'd share your last paragraph with a parent of one of the victims. In person.
I'm mocking you, asshole. And I would tell each and every one of the parents of a Newtown parent that none of the proposed laws would've prevented it, because that's just the facts as admitted by your own side. And that I think it's pathetic for people like you to use cheap emotionalism to pass wrongheaded laws as quickly as possible, and to try to silence opposition with such bathos. Which is the same thing I said about the fucking Patriot Act, and which I would've said then and would still say now to the relatives of the victims on 9/11. Got it, asshole? Or do you need to be taunted again?
...parents of a Newtown child...
Larry, the first problem you have is that you are an asshole. Or, at least, behaving like one. That's what adolescents do when they are insecure, things don't go their way, and they don't know how to solve problems. They just act like a dick.
I am trying solve problems like this and you're simply throwing around accusations because you are impotent and don't know what else to do. There are plenty of things that could have been done to prevent Newtown. The first would have been to not allow a nutball like Adam Lanza near a gun. With more serious mental health screenings in place, his mom would have not been allowed to try "make him a man" and let him use guns.
And I get that you are making fun of me, Larry. That's what all you guys do. But the comments sections of blogs is the only place where say this kind of shit because it's all you have left. You know full well how awful this sentiment is and how much you would hurt the parents of these victims should you share this kind of garbage with them.
And you won't because you, and the others, are cowards at the end of the day.
I am trying solve problems like this and you're simply throwing around accusations because you are impotent and don't know what else to do.
Uh, we know you are trying to solve problems and we are telling you why your solutions don't address the problem and are not and will not work. Then you continue to push them even though almost EVERYONE including the gun control crowd acknowledge they won't work. Yet here you are pushing that stupidity and crying about us getting irritated. How about learn a bit and stop pushing ignorant ideas? Funny enough, we want to solve the same problem. You act like a kid trying to push a square block through a round hole, we tell you it won't work, and then saying it will work and trying again...repeat ad nauseum.
Fact is, nothing proposed would have helped in any rampage. They would have passed background checks, universal or not. They didn't get their guns from Gun shows or flea markets or over the internet. They bought them legally or stole them.
We have ample examples of various gun laws throughout the US from lax to outright bans and can see the results. Bans don't work. Gun registration is only useful after a crime is committed, not prevention. Limited magazines only helps criminals. The list goes on forever. You and most of the gun control people (control-lite to banners) are all going down the wrong path. We know it, we have evidence to back it up, we have shown it to you, and still you push ignorant ideas. Why is that?
Mark, my problem is only that I don't think your solutions will be any more effective than the 1994 AWB. They couldn't have prevented Newtown. Or if you think they would've, you have yet to explain HOW they would've despite repeated requests to do so. You simply beg the question. And I sure as fuck don't appreciate insinuations and direct accusations that I don't care about children, or even that I want them killed. That is an asshole argument, and trying to use emotional blackmail to shut down debate. What goes around comes around. Capiche, asshole?
They just act like a dick.
Wait an asshole or a dick? That's a big difference - much bigger than the difference between a pussy and an asshole...
This might help.
The central problem with you guys is that it never occurs to you that you could be wrong. This is true with just about every issue. Worse, when you are shown to be wrong, you retreat into some sort of bizarro world where you make believe that you are right through verbal gymnastics and cherry picked data. The result is that you are "never wrong."
That's what's going to happen with the new gun laws. In reality, they will be effective and save lives. In your world, they never will.
The central problem with you guys is that it never occurs to you that you could be wrong.
Projecting again M? You do that a lot you know. Almost as much as you claim to read our minds.
Worse, when you are shown to be wrong, you retreat into some sort of bizarro world
Definitely projecting.
In reality, they will be effective and save lives.
Yes, and Jesus loves you.
Fairy tales are fine for the slight of mind, but they don't really form a sound basis for a society.
Yeah, right, says the person who cannot explain HOW the laws he wants would actually work (just that they WILL -- if only you have faith). We were told the same thing about the 1968 gun laws. Crime and murders continued to climb. We were told exactly the same thing about the 1994 AWB. And it failed utterly to have any measurable effect. Crime and murder rates had started to fall years earlier and continued their steady decline. We were told there would be blood in the streets when it expired. There wasn't. Murders are continuing to go down. We were told liberalized concealed carry would result in Wild West shootouts everywhere. They didn't didn't. Such a dizzying track record of successfully predicting the results of legislation your side has amassed.
And when the legislators pushing it are for the most part utterly clueless about what they're actually legislating, it's supposed to inspire confidence?
In reality, they will be effective and save lives
Says the guy who thinks that passing a law that requires all commercial gun sales to have a background check will make us safer than what exists today - which is that all commercial gun sales require a background check......
Interesting reality in which you live.
Post a Comment