Mass shootings

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Why would I hand political power to an agency that may turn on me in two years?

Two reasons.

1. If they turn on you in two years it will not make any difference what happens today.  They will make those laws in the future whether we have registration laws today or not. 

2.  Registration laws are necessary to enforce the laws intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Eighty percent of gun violence is committed by people who are not the rightful owners of the guns they used.  Without any gun registration requirements it is just way to easy for a criminal to obtain and possess a firearm.

Basically your argument is  "I will not agree to a good law today because they may pass the same law or a different law in two years."  Only a person who lives in the NRA echo chamber would see any logic in an argument like that.  It makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-13-2018, 12:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Two reasons.

1. If they turn on you in two years it will not make any difference what happens today.  They will make those laws in the future whether we have registration laws today or not.

Sure it will.  If they don't have a list of the firearms people own then confiscating them will be much more difficult.  This isn't a hard concept to grasp. 

Quote:2.  Registration laws are necessary to enforce the laws intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Eighty percent of gun violence is committed by people who are not the rightful owners of the guns they used.  Without any gun registration requirements it is just way to easy for a criminal to obtain and possess a firearm.

Clearly they are not "necessary" by definition as we don't have them now.  Registration won't make it any more difficult for a criminal to acquire a gun, especially as they typically acquire them during burglaries or robberies. 

Quote:Basically your argument is  "I will not agree to a good law today because they may pass the same law or a different law  in two years."

 
I don't think it's a good law, so, no, that's not my argument.

Quote:Only a person who lives in the NRA echo chamber would see any logic in an argument like that.

 
Ahh, a different term than brainwashing.  Very clever, Fred.

Quote:It makes absolutely no sense at all.

It makes plenty of sense, you just don't agree with it.  I think you've aptly demonstrated that Fred's opinion is not automatically analogous with "makes sense".

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Clearly they are not "necessary" by definition as we don't have them now.  Registration won't make it any more difficult for a criminal to acquire a gun, especially as they typically acquire them during burglaries or robberies. 

Yes it will make it much more difficult to obtain a weapon because all sales will only be allowed to people who can register a gun.  Private sales to criminals would no longer be allowed.

There is a major business in gun trafficking.  If a criminal wants a gun he buys it instead of looking for a place to steal one.

Right now if a police officer discovered a gun (or guns) in a car with a bunch of convicted felons all it takes is one guy with a clean record to claim ownership of the weapons and without more evidence there is nothing the police can do.

And if a police officer encounters a person with a gun the officer has no way to check his mental background to determine if he should be allowed to own a gun.

Finally, holding gun owners responsible for their guns would greatly reduce the number of guns that are just laying around unlocked for kids and/or adult criminals to pick up easily.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure it will.  If they don't have a list of the firearms people own then confiscating them will be much more difficult.  This isn't a hard concept to grasp. 

Then just refuse to register your guns.  If you are going to break the law and are willing to suffer the consequences then what difference does it make?

Arguing that a law should not be passed because it will make things harder on criminals is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

"We can't have that law because it will make it harder for me to break the law!"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-13-2018, 01:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it will make it much more difficult to obtain a weapon because all sales will only be allowed to people who can register a gun.  Private sales to criminals would no longer be allowed.

They aren't allowed now.

Quote:There is a major business in gun trafficking.  If a criminal wants a gun he buys it instead of looking for a place to steal one.

Actually, they usually buy them from someone who stole them directly or acquired the firearm from someone who stole it.

Quote:Right now if a police officer discovered a gun (or guns) in a car with a bunch of convicted felons all it takes is one guy with a clean record to claim ownership of the weapons and without more evidence there is nothing the police can do.

It's not that simple, and you know it.

Quote:And if a police officer encounters a person with a gun the officer has no way to check his mental background to determine if he should be allowed to own a gun.

Wait, so you're now saying your proposed registry would include HIPAA information as well?

Quote:Finally, holding gun owners responsible for their guns would greatly reduce the number of guns that are just laying around unlocked for kids and/or adult criminals to pick up easily.

How would a registry do that?  Sounds like your creeping up on safe storage laws.  But there's no such thing as a slippery slope eh?

(03-13-2018, 01:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then just refuse to register your guns.  If you are going to break the law and are willing to suffer the consequences then what difference does it make?

Arguing that a law should not be passed because it will make things harder on criminals is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

"We can't have that law because it will make it harder for me to break the law!"

It makes compete sense when the "criminals" you refer to were law abiding citizens until they were turned into "criminals" with the stroke of a pen. Such an act seems to me the very definition of a gross injustice.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They aren't allowed now.

But enforcement is next to impossible.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, so you're now saying your proposed registry would include HIPAA information as well?

Do you support mentally insane people being allowed to own guns?

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It makes compete sense when the "criminals" you refer to were law abiding citizens until they were turned into "criminals" with the stroke of a pen.  Such an act seems to me the very definition of a gross injustice.

Your opinion on the validity of the law is meaningless.  The fact is that are admitting that you will violate the law and the only reason you oppose a gun registry is because it will make it harder on criminals like you to get away with breaking the law.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How would a registry do that?  Sounds like your creeping up on safe storage laws.  But there's no such thing as a slippery slope eh?

So you also oppose holding gun owners responsible for negligent handling of their weapons?  Why exactly do you oppose that?  You in favor of letting small children play with loaded guns?

Damn, this gun registry is really going to be a burden to the mentally insane, people who do not take proper precautions with their guns, and people who are going to break the law.  But as long as the NRA tells you to oppose it you will, right?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-13-2018, 03:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But enforcement is next to impossible.

Based on the amount of illegal gun charges I've seen that would appear to be an inaccurate statement.

(03-13-2018, 04:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Do you support mentally insane people being allowed to own guns?

Is that what I said?

(03-13-2018, 04:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Your opinion on the validity of the law is meaningless.  The fact is that are admitting that you will violate the law and the only reason you oppose a gun registry is because it will make it harder on criminals like you to get away with breaking the law.

I didn't admit that, stop using your time worn tactic of putting words in the mouths of others.  I will respond with a question that you won't directly answer, do you support criminalizing lawful gun owners?  Maybe we could have sanctuary states for gun owners?

(03-13-2018, 04:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you also oppose holding gun owners responsible for negligent handling of their weapons?

I oppose laws that are often vaguely written and cover people they have no right to cover.  There are no children in my home, why should I be mandated to store my firearms in a particular way or face criminal censure?  Because you feel like it? 

Quote:Why exactly do you oppose that?

 
Careful, Fred, you're putting us on the slippery slope with your own words.  First you wanted a registry, then you wanted illegal HIPAA information to be included, now you want safe storage laws.  Remember though, correlation does not equal causation.

Quote:You in favor of letting small children play with loaded guns?

Is that what I said?  Time word Fred tactics, time worn.

Quote:Damn, this gun registry is really going to be a burden to the mentally insane, people who do not take proper precautions with their guns, and people who are going to break the law.

 
Break what law?  It would have to be enacted for it to be broken.  Keep telling us what civil liberties you're willing to take from us, Fred.  This conversation has been very enlightening.  I suspect you don't even realize how much you're helped my argument with your responses.

Quote:But as long as the NRA tells you to oppose it you will, right?

Tsk tsk, yet another way to claim "brain washing".  No one thinks for themselves but Fred and his buddies.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is that what I said?

No, but it is impossible to have any sort of serious debate witha person like you who will never make a clear statement, but instead wants to play games with vague questions and implications

So to clear things up, are you in favor of letting mentally insane people own weapons, and if not how do you recommend we enforce that regulation.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I oppose laws that are often vaguely written and cover people they have no right to cover.  There are no children in my home, why should I be mandated to store my firearms in a particular way or face criminal censure?  Because you feel like it? 

I don't care how you store your weapons.  I just want to be able to hold you responsible if you don't take proper precautions to keep them out of the hands of children.

This is such a basic concept it is ridiculous that I have to spell it out for you.  We have regulations for all types of dangerous items and substances that are put in place to hold people responsible for their negligent handling of these items or substances.  I don't see why anyone woulkd not understand how these same type of regulations should not apply to guns.

[GMDino]

(03-13-2018, 04:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't care how you store your weapons.  I just want to be able to hold you responsible if you don't take proper precautions to keep them out of the hands of children.

This is such a basic concept it is ridiculous that I have to spell it out for you.  We have regulations for all types of dangerous items and substances that are put in place to hold people responsible for their negligent handling of these items or substances.  I don't see why anyone woulkd not understand how these same type of regulations should not apply to guns.

Maybe I misunderstood but if a law says you should do "A" if you have children in your home and you DON'T have children in your home then the law wouldn't apply to you? Right?

Like laws mandating flood insurance IF you live in certain areas.  If you don't live there it doesn't affect you.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Break what law?  It would have to be enacted for it to be broken.  Keep telling us what civil liberties you're willing to take from us, Fred.  This conversation has been very enlightening.  I suspect you don't even realize how much you're helped my argument with your responses.

The only law you have been talking about breaking is a potential gun confiscation law.  You clearly stated that one reason you oppose a gun registry is because it would make gun confiscation easier.  And the only reason you would have a problem with that would be if you were not going to surrender you gun if a law was passed saying you had to.

Again it is amazing how I have to explain every little detail in order for you to understand simple concepts that we have already been discussing.

And I have not have not said that i would take away any of your civil liberties.  I have said all along that you can own your guns.  All I am proposing are regulations for the sake of public safety that would not take away ANY of your civil liberties.

Now please explain how this has "helped your argument", because I don't see it at all.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 04:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe I misunderstood but if a law says you should do "A" if you have children in your home and you DON'T have children in your home then the law wouldn't apply to you? Right?

Like laws mandating flood insurance IF you live in certain areas.  If you don't live there it doesn't affect you.

That is one option, but I did not have any particular details in mind.  For example, there are no specific laws about how high a fence you have to have if you have a lion in your back yard, but if he gets out you can be held responsible for any damage he causes if your fence was not high enough to keep him in.

All I want to do is hold gun owners responsible if they are negligent in the way the store or handle their guns.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-13-2018, 05:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is one option, but I did not have any particular details in mind.  For example, there are no specific laws about how high a fence you have to have if you have a lion in your back yard, but if he gets out you can be held responsible for any damage he causes if your fence was not high enough to keep him in.

Out of curiousity, which law states that?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-13-2018, 04:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No, but it is impossible to have any sort of serious debate witha person like you who will never make a clear statement, but instead wants to play games with vague questions and implications

Odd, then, that others don't seem to have this issue.  Within this very thread, even.

Quote:So to clear things up, are you in favor of letting mentally insane people own weapons, and if not how do you recommend we enforce that regulation.

Is that what I said?

(03-13-2018, 04:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't care how you store your weapons.  I just want to be able to hold you responsible if you don't take proper precautions to keep them out of the hands of children.

Then I'd advise you to talk to the lawmakers who craft such laws differently.

Quote:This is such a basic concept it is ridiculous that I have to spell it out for you.

 
Oh yeah, Fred, spell it out for me good!

Quote:We have regulations for all types of dangerous items and substances that are put in place to hold people responsible for their negligent handling of these items or substances.  I don't see why anyone woulkd not understand how these same type of regulations should not apply to guns.

Wait, so if your kid gets a hold of a Tide pod or drinks some bleach you will be held criminally liable?

(03-13-2018, 05:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The only law you have been talking about breaking is a potential gun confiscation law.

Sorry, no.  Stop lying Fred, I didn't talk about breaking any law.

 

Quote: You clearly stated that one reason you oppose a gun registry is because it would make gun confiscation easier.

 
See, you can tell the truth when you try really hard!

Quote:And the only reason you would have a problem with that would be if you were not going to surrender you gun if a law was passed saying you had to.

I'd really hate to think of a day in which the government came to confiscate our firearms.  Best to not give them the option so authoritarian types don't feel the need to scratch that itch. 

Quote:Again it is amazing how I have to explain every little detail in order for you to understand simple concepts that we have already been discussing.

I'm very stupid, Fred.  It's difficult for me to keep up with a titanic intellect such as yours.

Quote:And I have not have not said that i would take away any of your civil liberties.

 
You mean except for the ones you've progressively advocated in this thread?  Such a relief.

Quote:I have said all along that you can own your guns.

 
Thank you for granting me the permission already given to me by the framers of our current government.  Mighty generous of you.

Quote:All I am proposing are regulations for the sake of public safety that would not take away ANY of your civil liberties.

In your opinion and at the present moment, maybe.  However, as you've so adequately demonstrated in this thread, I don't think anyone believes you or your ilk will stop with the demands of today and declare yourself satisfied in perpetuity.  

Quote:Now please explain how this has "helped your argument", because I don't see it at all.

I wouldn't expect you to you, Fred.  I wouldn't expect you to.   

[Dill]

(03-13-2018, 07:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Odd, then, that others don't seem to have this issue.  Within this very thread, even.

Is that what I said?

Then I'd advise you to talk to the lawmakers who craft such laws differently.

Oh yeah, Fred, spell it out for me good!

Wait, so if your kid gets a hold of a Tide pod or drinks some bleach you will be held criminally liable?

Sorry, no.  Stop lying Fred, I didn't talk about breaking any law.

See, you can tell the truth when you try really hard!

I'd really hate to think of a day in which the government came to confiscate our firearms.  Best to not give them the option so authoritarian types don't feel the need to scratch that itch. 

I'm very stupid, Fred.  It's difficult for me to keep up with a titanic intellect such as yours.

You mean except for the ones you've progressively advocated in this thread?  Such a relief.
 
Thank you for granting me the permission already given to me by the framers of our current government.  Mighty generous of you.

In your opinion and at the present moment, maybe.  However, as you've so adequately demonstrated in this thread, I don't think anyone believes you or your ilk will stop with the demands of today and declare yourself satisfied in perpetuity.  

I wouldn't expect you to you, Fred.  I wouldn't expect you to.   

...

[Dill]

(03-13-2018, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Based on the amount of illegal gun charges I've seen that would appear to be an inaccurate statement.

Is that what I said?

I didn't admit that, stop using your time worn tactic of putting words in the mouths of others.  I will respond with a question that you won't directly answer, do you support criminalizing lawful gun owners?  Maybe we could have sanctuary states for gun owners?

I oppose laws that are often vaguely written and cover people they have no right to cover.  There are no children in my home, why should I be mandated to store my firearms in a particular way or face criminal censure?  Because you feel like it? 

Careful, Fred, you're putting us on the slippery slope with your own words.  First you wanted a registry, then you wanted illegal HIPAA information to be included, now you want safe storage laws.  Remember though, correlation does not equal causation.

Is that what I said?  Time word Fred tactics, time worn.

Break what law?  It would have to be enacted for it to be broken.  Keep telling us what civil liberties you're willing to take from us, Fred.  This conversation has been very enlightening.  I suspect you don't even realize how much you're helped my argument with your responses.

Tsk tsk, yet another way to claim "brain washing".  No one thinks for themselves but Fred and his buddies.

...

[Dill]

(03-13-2018, 01:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote:
Yes it will make it much more difficult to obtain a weapon because all sales will only be allowed to people who can register a gun.  Private sales to criminals would no longer be allowed.

There is a major business in gun trafficking.  If a criminal wants a gun he buys it instead of looking for a place to steal one.

Right now if a police officer discovered a gun (or guns) in a car with a bunch of convicted felons all it takes is one guy with a clean record to claim ownership of the weapons and without more evidence there is nothing the police can do.

And if a police officer encounters a person with a gun the officer has no way to check his mental background to determine if he should be allowed to own a gun.

Finally, holding gun owners responsible for their guns would greatly reduce the number of guns that are just laying around unlocked for kids and/or adult criminals to pick up easily.

The first four statements are premises in support of one claim, that gun registration would help keep guns out of the wrong hands, therefore an extended argument. The last one is an enthymeme. All focus on the issue; no quips or ad hoc ad hominem.