KY school shooting

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 02:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I believe the term used was "unaware" they were stolen.  Remember counselor, a lawyer should be precise with their wording.

Precise wording is important if it changes the meaning of the comment, but in this case it does not.

It doesn't matter if the person refused to report it or if he just did not know nit was stolen.  My point was that it would be impossible for a police officer to determine if a gun was stolen.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2018, 02:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And I apologized for the misunderstanding and asked if you would like to clear it up.

So what exactly did you mean by "going after law abiding citizens" if you were not refering to government regulations.

Would I like to clear up an argument I didn't make?  No, because I didn't make the argument.  What I meant was clear, gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens.  Criminals, by definition, will break the law.  Punish criminals by actually utilizing existing law, do not further restrict the rights of the law abiding.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 02:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, and if we eliminated the 4th amendment protections law enforcement could really clamp down on crime.  I'll use street gangs as an example.  Law enforcement knows who the gang members are.  They know where the gang members largely hang out.  If law enforcement were freed from the shackles (used ironically btw) of the 4th amendment then street gangs could be eliminated nationwide within two weeks time.  They would be obliterated.  As criminal street gangs account for well over half of firearms related homicides would not doing so promote "public safety"?

With every Constitutional right the courts have to determine what limitations can be imposed in the name of public safety.  That is why they have been able to put limits on free speech without completely eliminating the First Amendment.  In fact they have even carved out exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.  The key word in all of this judicial rulings is "reasonable", and I don't see anything unreasonable about requiring government regulation like licensing and registration of guns the exact same way as we treat other products that are a public safety issue.


BTW if police know where gangs hang out then why wouldn't they just get a warrant to search the location?  

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 02:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  What I meant was clear, gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens.

If government regulations only effect law abiding citizens then why are so many people in jail for violating these regulations?  That does not make any sense to me.

(01-26-2018, 02:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Punish criminals by actually utilizing existing law, do not further restrict the rights of the law abiding.

I am not restricting the rights of any law abiding citizens.  They are still free to own any legal firearm just the same as they are now.

At this point it is impossible for a police officer to charge a person in possession of a stolen gun because a majority of the time the gun has not been reported stolen.  We need additional regulation to make it possible to enforce the existing laws.

The fact that 80% of violent gun crimes are committed by a person who is not the lawful owner of the gun proves to me that we need some additional regulation to restrict criminals access to stolen weapons.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2018, 02:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: With every Constitutional right the courts have to determine what limitations can be imposed in the name of public safety.  That is why they have been able to put limits on free speech without completely eliminating the First Amendment.  In fact they have even carved out exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.  The key word in all of this judicial rulings is "reasonable", and I don't see anything unreasonable about requiring government regulation like licensing and registration of guns the exact same way as we treat other products that are a public safety issue.

You don't think it's unreasonable, others do. 

Quote:BTW if police know where gangs hang out then why wouldn't they just get a warrant to search the location?  

You really need to ask that question?  Will a judge issue a search warrant because "gang members sometimes hang out there"?

(01-26-2018, 02:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If government regulations only effect law abiding citizens then why are so many people in jail for violating these regulations?  That does not make any sense to me.

Is a person in jail for violating the law a "law abiding citizen? 

Quote:I am not restricting the rights of any law abiding citizens.  They are still free to own any legal firearm just the same as they are now.

Until the government decides what they bought legally is no longer legal and they then come for your property.  It's already happening in CA, which is why you'll never get gun owners to agree to your proposal.  Gun control advocates and politicians have proven time and again that they are dishonest about their ultimate goal.  No one is buying your "common sense gun laws" approach because it's a smokescreen.

Quote:At this point it is impossible for a police officer to charge a person in possession of a stolen gun because a majority of the time the gun has not been reported stolen.  We need additional regulation to make it possible to enforce the existing laws.

No, it's not impossible, you just admitted that "most of the time" it's not reported as stolen which means, "some of the time" it is.  In those instances the person could, and would, be arrested for possession of a stolen gun.

Quote:The fact that 80% of violent gun crimes are committed by a person who is not the lawful owner of the gun proves to me that we need some additional regulation to restrict criminals access to stolen weapons.

It should prove to you that those people need to be in prison for a long time so they can't commit anymore crimes against the general public.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 02:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens. 

(01-26-2018, 02:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If government regulations only effect law abiding citizens then why are so many people in jail for violating these regulations? 

(01-26-2018, 03:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is a person in jail for violating the law a "law abiding citizen? 

No.  The people in jail are not law abiding citizens and they were effected by the regulations.

That is exactly why you are wrong when you claim the regulations only effect law abiding citizens. 

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 03:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Until the government decides what they bought legally is no longer legal and they then come for your property.  It's already happening in CA, which is why you'll never get gun owners to agree to your proposal.  Gun control advocates and politicians have proven time and again that they are dishonest about their ultimate goal.  No one is buying your "common sense gun laws" approach because it's a smokescreen.

I agree that there are some people who want to make all guns illegal, but you can't claim that is true of everyone.  I know lots of people, even gun owners, who are in favor of licensing for all gun owners and registration of weapons.  They are smart enough to realize that innocent people are being killed by criminals with guns.  They don't care how many gang members are being killed.  They don't think the death of some gang members makes it okay for innocent people to die as well.

The NRA has been scaring people to death about the government coming for their guns for years.  They use that scare tactic to drive up the sale of guns.

If your only argument against a reasonable law that would save innocent lives is a paranoid fear of a future law then you really have no argument. You are already willing to break the law if they outlaw your guns so what difference will this licensing and registration make?  If you are going to be a criminal over your gun possession it doesn't matter if you do it now or later.  If they get the votes to outlaw guns then this law will not make any difference, but in the meantime it will save lives.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 03:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it's not impossible, you just admitted that "most of the time" it's not reported as stolen which means, "some of the time" it is.  In those instances the person could, and would, be arrested for possession of a stolen gun.

Again you are parsing words that don't really change the meaning.

"Many times it would be impossible to tell if the gun was stolen."

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 02:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The fact that 80% of violent gun crimes are committed by a person who is not the lawful owner of the gun proves to me that we need some additional regulation to restrict criminals access to stolen weapons.

(01-26-2018, 03:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It should prove to you that those people need to be in prison for a long time so they can't commit anymore crimes against the general public.

And now we are starting to go in circles.  i have already addressed this.   We need regulations to PREVENT crimes instead of just waiting until somebody is shot to punish the shooter.

That is like arguing to do away with drunk driving laws and just lock up people for a long time after they wreck and kill someone.  Or allow anyone to buy as much high explosives as they want and just punish the ones who kill people after it happens.

Stiffer penalties might help, but every criminal is a "first time offender" at some point and we can't lock people up for life over a non-lethal crime.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2018, 04:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  The people in jail are not law abiding citizens and they were effected by the regulations.

That is exactly why you are wrong when you claim the regulations only effect law abiding citizens. 

Except that's not what I said.  As this is the third time you have deliberately misrepresented my argument I'm now done.  I enjoy a good debate, I don't enjoy someone Cathy Newmaning me every other post. 

[*PhilHos*]

(01-25-2018, 08:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We are lacking the most basic laws that are needed.

Are we, though? As far as I know, in every part of the country, it's illegal to use a gun to kill someone except in self defense. It's also illegal to use a gun to commit other crimes.

I would think those are the most basic laws that are needed.

(01-25-2018, 08:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Every gun needs to be registered to an owner and every gun owner needs a license to own a gun.  

I'm personally not opposed to this idea.

(01-25-2018, 08:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We will never be able to control gun traffic, hold owners responsible, or keep guns out of the hands of criminals without these two very basic requirements.  

Well, even WITH those requirements, we're never going to be able to control gun traffic or keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't gun owners be held responsible if their gun is used in a crime to a certain degree and depending on the situation?

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 06:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except that's not what I said.  As this is the third time you have deliberately misrepresented my argument I'm now done.  I enjoy a good debate, I don't enjoy someone Cathy Newmaning me every other post. 

Again I apologize for the misunderstanding.  I thought that by quoting you directly I would be sure to properly represent what you said.

So what exactly did you mean when you said "Gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens"?

I am pretty sure the gun control laws we have now, as well as the ones I am suggesting, effect criminals by placing them in jail.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 06:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Are we, though? As far as I know, in every part of the country, it's illegal to use a gun to kill someone except in self defense. It's also illegal to use a gun to commit other crimes.

I would think those are the most basic laws that are needed.

Those laws only allow us to punish people AFTER the crime has been committed.  What we need are laws that help address the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals before they can commit a crime.

SSF posted a link to a study that showed that 80% of gun crimes are committed by people who are not the lawful owner of the gun they used in the crime.  We can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals without some basic registration laws.  A person can be openly carrying a stolen gun to go commit a crime and there is nothing a police officer can do to stop him unless the the person is a convicted felon already.  Most guns in the hands of criminals are not reported as stolen so the police have no way of knowing.

(01-26-2018, 06:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Well, even WITH those requirements, we're never going to be able to control gun traffic or keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't gun owners be held responsible if their gun is used in a crime to a certain degree and depending on the situation?

We can do a lot better than we are now.  Laws against stealing don't stop people from stealing, but it would be MUCH worse if there was no law against stealing.

I don't know about civil actions but here in Tennessee there is no criminal charge if your gun is used in a crime.  According to the study that SSF posted it seems that when confronted with the fact that their gun was in the possession of a criminal most people just say that it was stolen.  But without registration laws it is very difficult to even determin who the lawful owner of a gun is.

We require licensing and registration for people to drive cars, use explosives, use toxic chemicals, obtain narcotic pain medicine, and many many other things that are public safety concerns.  It does not make any sense to not do the same thing with something as dangerous as a gun.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2018, 07:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Again I apologize for the misunderstanding.  I thought that by quoting you directly I would be sure to properly represent what you said.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 08:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Again, please accept my apology for misunderstanding what you said.

I still don't understand what you meant when you said "Gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens".  Could you please explain what I am missing here?  I don't mean to start a fight.  I just want to clear this up so we can move forward.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2018, 08:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Again, please accept my apology for misunderstanding what you said.

I still don't understand what you meant when you said "Gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens".  Could you please explain what I am missing here?  I don't mean to start a fight.  I just want to clear this up so we can move forward.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 09:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Sorry, but I am still confused.

What does this have to do with your claim that gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens?

The second person in this meme does not directly quote and repeat what the first person said.  In the discussion we are having I directly quoted exactly what you said. 

So how does this meme have anything to do with our discussion?

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 09:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but I am still confused.

What does this have to do with your claim that gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens?

The second person in this meme does not directly quote and repeat what the first person said.  In the discussion we are having I directly quoted exactly what you said. 

So how does this meme have anything to do with our discussion?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Hey Fred, would you be willing to have a GPS chip implanted in your body that would only be activated by a judicial order? You have nothing to worry about if you're not a criminal, the chip would never be activated otherwise. Please indicate your acceptance of such a national database, Fred.

[fredtoast]

(02-08-2018, 02:02 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hey Fred, would you be willing to have a GPS chip implanted in your body that would only be activated by a judicial order?  You have nothing to worry about if you're not a criminal, the chip would never be activated otherwise.  Please indicate your acceptance of such a national database, Fred.

I feel that might be a tad too physically intrusive and expensive, but answer me this.

Would you be willing to certify your current address and provide a photo ID to the government in order to receive a drivers license?  You would have nothing to worry about if you are not a criminal, the information would never be used against you otherwise.  Please indicate your acceptence of such a national database SSF.