Support NeoGAF

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

But he didn't suggest it. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? His post suggested nothing of the sort. This is quickly going from good-natured ribbing to casting serious doubts on your reading comprehension skills. Seriously, Manos, what level of education did you achieve?

Yes he did.
BA in Government and Law and History, MA in Poli Sci and a JD, and a member of the NY Bar.

Good luck getting an answer on this one. He tends not to answer questions that make sense. Actually, I take that back. He may respond to it, but he won't answer it. The response will likely involve some kind of re-direction or hand-waving tactic, possibly a link to UK knife-related homicide rates. Judging by previous behavior, he may also try to lie or contradict himself. In other words, you'll get anything but an actual answer.

You have been the one that has been lying and ignoring data in this thread along with Gamieguy.

? All right. Seeing as how riled up you are, I've obviously hit a nerve. Just leave the gun in the holster there, Rambo. I'll look into it. Does GaimeGuy have a response to this? Or maybe Manos himself could actually point out what was inaccurate with what GaimeGuy said. You know... specifics. I'd like to know.

]
I did, once again you are lying, I stated that you cannot sell a gun to a prohibited person. A really blatant and obvious. You accepted it with no need for any proof. You need to stop lying.

We need a response here before Scarface goes all postal on us and shows us his "little friend".

What are you implying?

Ooookay. Then I'm sure that you can point out and share these refutations and exposures. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh yeah, you told everybody that you talked with Funky Papa in another thread and he told you how lax Spanish gun control laws are. I then copy and pasted a post where Funky Papa describes how strict they are. You LIED.

No you lied, I never said it was lax. I said compared to England where handguns are banned

"kissed up" to him

We know lol

he intellectually tore you a new one

When did that happen? lol Amirox didn't prove a damn thing.

Oh, is GaimeGuy publishing his post? Which peer review journal is he publishing in?

You're the one saying your skills helped you thought you found things that you though you were wrong. Apparently you don't apply this skills to posts you just blindingly accept because it favors your positions.

Also why did you ignore the 43 page article I posted?

Do you ever get tired with being exposed as being wrong?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Mammoth, i'm sorry but you're nearly as a bad as Manos with your crummy logic. You can't call yourself a liberal and say you don't give a shit about society's problem. That's a right wing position to take. Nor can you just write off 9 million people who live in Chicago with "lol don't live there". Not everyone can afford to live in an idyllic peaceful place. The US also has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Whether that is a good idea is a subject for another time, but you can't possibly believe the solution is to put more people in jail. Just trying to point out the holes in your thinking.

Believe it or not there are gun owning liberals. You don't know the first thing about me as a human being nor do you know where I stand on a wide range of issues to really deduce my overall ideology or where it sits on the political spectrum. I'm pro-second amendment. What if I'm also pro-choice? Do the two balance each other out on the political-meter?

You know who I give a shit about in jail? The 8.5 million non-violent drug offenders in Chicago. You know the kids out smoking weed that got caught and tossed in the system. Let those people out and get em the help they need. You know who I don't give a fuck about? People that use violence and threats of violence as a means to an end. Sorry. They score a 0.0 on my give-a-shitometer.

No shit they can't move. Someone suggested Germany was a gun free paradise and my exact retort was "Well, that's great but I'm not moving to Germany". Also, Chicago is a heavy gun controlled city. Shouldn't be a wonderful place according to many people that thing disarming law abiding citizens is the answer to violent criminality?

Thank you for pointing out the holes in my thinking. I'm not perfect and I have no doubt that they are there. But I just wanted to respond to a little bit of what you said. Especially about the right wing shit, LMAO. If you only knew me outside of our debate about this one issue, ha.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Oh give me a break most of what he posted was lies and inaccuracies. The fact you accept it so willingly is hillarious, Mr Peer Review. You cannot sell a gun to a prohibited person. Of course you aren't interested in the truth so I guess it's not an issue for you.

Okay, let's go to Google and we'll use the search term "can a criminal buy a gun". << 0.51 seconds later >> Let's try looking at the first couple of results. Hmmm... Well, suck me sideways. Seems like GaimeGuy was right!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those
licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity."

The report goes on to state that "over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs" and reveals that 23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, when a new law took effect requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours. This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years.

Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts.

While many guns are taken off the street when people are arrested and any firearms in their possession are confiscated, a new study shows how easily arrestees believe they could illegally acquire another firearm. Supported by the National Institute of Justice and based on interviews with those recently arrested, the study acknowledges gun theft is common, with 13 percent of all arrestees interviewed admitting that they had stolen a gun. However a key finding is that "the illegal market is the most likely source" for these people to obtain a gun. "In fact, more than half the arrestees say it is easy to obtain guns illegally," the report states. Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it.

ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. Cracking down on these dealers continues to be a priority for the ATF. What's needed, according to Wachtel, is better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers. This means examining FFL paperwork to see where their guns are coming from, and making sure that those guns are being sold legally. But he says, "Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."

This next one is a video transcript. You can watch the actual video at the link:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454/ns/today-today_rossen_reports/t/rossen-reports-anyone-can-buy-guns-no-questions-asked/#.UGUGKVEsw_w

Rossen Reports: Anyone can buy guns, no questions asked
Legal loophole permits weapons powerful enough to down aircraft to be sold without checks

good morning to you. and some say this is a major loophole in the law. at gun stores you have to get a background check before you can buy a weapon. but online , in most states, anyone from law-abiding citizens to dangerous criminals, even terrorists, can get just about any weapon they want, no questions asked. our investigation shows the deals going down in broad daylight in suburban mall parking lots . they are some of the most lethal weapons out there. and we were able to buy all of them in a single day. with no background checks , no questions asked. it's this easy. hundreds of thousands of guns for sale, on hundreds of websites. we responded, and set up meetings at popular shopping malls .

how much was it that we agreed on?

500.

we bought everything. from this police-grade pistol. to this semi automatic assault rifle .

what if you went and shot somebody with it?

we did it over and over again. our buyer even hinting he's a criminal.

no paperwork, no background checks . probably couldn't pass the darn thing, anyway.

within hours we bought eight guns.

good god.

even this 50-caliber weapon, so powerful, it could take down a helicopter.

the people you just sold it to could be terrorists and you sold it no questions asked.

yeah.

remember, at a gun store , a background check is required. but online ? nothing. and believe it or not, in most states -- it's completely legal.

is this like a candy store for criminals?

it's a weapons bazaar for criminals.

nbc hired former ntf adviser to help with our investigation.

somebody even with a murder conviction can log on, email someone, meet them in a parking lot and buy an ak-47.

34 people are murdered ever are i day in gun violence , with many of the weapons traced back to private sales just like these.

no one should have to die like that. these two women lost their best friend killed by a stalker. this canadian man who crossed into the u.s. bought a gun online in seattle and then shot her 11 times. as she got into her car.

no legitimate gun store would have sold this man a gun because he's not a u.s. citizen , he wouldn't have passed a background check . yet he was able to easily buy one online .

there's not a doubt in my mind, had this man not been able to buy a gun online , she would still be here.

what kind of dangerous weapons could we buy? to find out, we went online and responded to gun ads in phoenix, arizona. within minutes, we had meetings set up. our gun buyers, two arizona security experts we hired. posing as husband and wife. this man is about to sell us a tactical assault rifle. modified to use bullets for an ak-47.

come over here real quick and i'll give you the money.

we were watching from nearby vans as our buyers paid cash for the guns. no questions asked.

hi, jeff rossen with nbc news, you just sold an assault rifle to a couple of people who you have no idea who they are. or what they could do with that gun. they could go rob a bank or hurt somebody. does that ever weigh on you?

it does, it does, but at the same time i'm not going to be responsible for what they choose to do with it.

for our next meetings, we took it up a notch. telling the seller, point-blank, we probably can't pass a background check . will they still sell us the guns then? we're about to find out. this man is peddling a glock 23 . with hollow-point bullets, made to inflict serious internal damage.

we're not going to do any paperwork, no background checks , i probably couldn't pass it, anyway.

i shouldn't be selling it to you.

well anyway, i appreciate it.

we shake on it. he told you he couldn't pass a background checks , did that raise any red flags for you?

slightly, but in this economy, when you need the money, you need the money.

it's all about the cash. people could get hurt, doth that matter?

yes.

it didn't matter to you.

i need the money.

the twists and turns are just beginning. this seller shows up with a tactical shotgun and assault rifle and his 7-year-old son. remember, our buyers could be dangerous felons.

i appreciate the fact no paperwork, no background check . 'cuz i probably couldn't pass it anyway, man. now watch as he hands the cash to his boy. jeff rossen with nbc news. how are you?

i'm not interested in talking to you.

we're just doing a story about online gun sales. he said he couldn't pass a background check and you still sold him the weapon. but the most scary transaction of all came after dark, in this pharmacy parking lot . the online ad was for this 50-caliber sniper rifle . the most powerful gun legally sold in the u.s. bullet range? five miles, it can pierce armored vehicles , even bring down a helicopter.

this is set up.

but the seller is so laid back, you would think he's hawking a used bicycle.

enjoy it, i know you're going to like it.

once he got the cash, the gun was ours, no questions asked. but we had some for him. this is the gun of choice for the drug cartels worldwide this gun can take down a helicopter.

it can take anything. it's a 50-caliber, i understand.

you know how powerful this weapon is.

oh, yeah.

doesn't it concern you that you have no idea who these people are, they could be dangerous felons, terrorists.

i never thought about it, to be honest.

and it's happening nationwide. in new york, mayor michael bloomberg led another investigation, buying guns online in 14 states. even after their buyer said they couldn't pass a background check .

i don't know what it takes, how many people, who has to get murdered before congress is going to stand up and say enough of this?

so what's the government doing about did? it turns out there's a bill that would close this loophole. and require background checks for all gun sales. even online . but that bill has been sitting in committee for nearly a year.

maybe your report will motivate people to act.

new york senator, chuck schumer is sponsoring the bill.

with all due respect, as congress continues to debate this and play politics, authorities say criminals, dangerous criminals in many cases are buying guns online .

the nra is one of the most powerful lobbies in washington and despite the overwhelming evidence, that we should do something, which your report buttresses, the odds of us being able to do something are not high.

the nra says it opposes the bill because it has many serious flaws. but wouldn't comment about online gun sales. in the past, the nra has fought background checks for any private sales. but victims say, until the law is changed, more innocent people will die.

all they care about is profit. profit over lives. and it's wrong.

keep in mind, this is legal. and lots of people in this country support private gun sales without background checks . they say it's not about making money or profit, it's about their individual rights . as for the eight guns we bought, we turned them over to the phoenix police department , where matt, that police department will actually destroy them.

Honestly, Manos, at this point I have to ask if you really... you know... KNOW much about gun laws in your own country. It doesn't sound like you do. What kind of bullshit are you trying to pull here? Are you going to man-up and admit that you were wrong this time? Seriously, I'm starting to feel bad at the beating that you're taking. Man, we've all torn you so many new ones that you'll just have to develop jaundice and your transformation into Spongebob Squarepants will be complete. UNbelievable...

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Okay, let's go to Google and we'll use the search term "can a criminal buy a gun". << 0.51 seconds later >> Let's try looking at the first couple of results. Hmmm... Well, suck me sideways. Seems like GaimeGuy was right!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Was aired in 1995. Nice try with that 17 year old data. lol

Honestly, Manos, at this point I have to ask if you really... you know... KNOW much about gun laws in your own country. It doesn't sound like you do. What kind of bullshit are you trying to pull here? Are you going to man-up and admit that you were wrong this time? Seriously, I'm starting to feel bad at the beating that you're taking. Man, we've all torn you so many new ones that you'll just have to develop jaundice and your transformation into Spongebob Squarepants will be complete. UNbelievable...

You sourced something based on a Michael Bloomberg investigation LOL

Oh man I can't believe you would source from something that was paid for by the head of MAIG.

So sorry to tell you but I know a lot about the laws in this country, you know very little though about proper sourcing of your information and who to get you info from and US Gun Laws.

You cannot knowingly sell to a prohibited person...Gamieguy was wrong.

Oh man the 50 cal that can shot down a helicopter bullshit. lol

Better luck next time!

 

[HyperionX]

Believe it or not there are gun owning liberals. You don't know the first thing about me as a human being nor do you know where I stand on a wide range of issues to really deduce my overall ideology or where it sits on the political spectrum. I'm pro-second amendment. What if I'm also pro-choice? Do the two balance each other out on the political-meter?

I've no doubt you have a liberal position overall. However, I've seen your position on gun control from a number of people before, and yours isn't particularly unique. It's also one that's generally associated with conservatism in both mannerism and philosophy.

You know who I give a shit about in jail? The 8.5 million non-violent drug offenders in Chicago. You know the kids out smoking weed that got caught and tossed in the system. Let those people out and get em the help they need. You know who I don't give a fuck about? People that use violence and threats of violence as a means to an end. Sorry. They score a 0.0 on my give-a-shitometer.

No shit they can't move. Someone suggested Germany was a gun free paradise and my exact retort was "Well, that's great but I'm not moving to Germany". Also, Chicago is a heavy gun controlled city. Shouldn't be a wonderful place according to many people that thing disarming law abiding citizens is the answer to violent criminality?

Thank you for pointing out the holes in my thinking. I'm not perfect and I have no doubt that they are there. But I just wanted to respond to a little bit of what you said. Especially about the right wing shit, LMAO. If you only knew me outside of our debate about this one issue, ha.

So all societal ills are problems that people other than gun owners have to deal with? And that any problematic laws or culture issues, must be change in a way that affect millions people, but they cannot affect gun owners? Are gun rights really that important to you?

If you don't like that being called a right wing position, then you should settle for it being a highly introverted one.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

I've no doubt you have a liberal position overall. However, I've seen your position on gun control from a number of people before, and yours isn't particularly unique. It's also one that's generally associated with conservatism in both mannerism and philosophy.



So all societal ills are problems that people other than gun owners have to deal with? And that any problematic laws or culture issues, must be change in a way that affect millions people, but they cannot affect gun owners? Are gun rights really that important to you?

If you don't like that being called a right wing position, then you should settle for it being a highly introverted one.

You're reaching a bit
If you read his posts you'd see he never said nor implied anything remotely similar to that.

It's good to address what people actually say instead of what you think they think.

 

[alphaNoid]

I'm drinking beers and enjoying watching Manos educate.. Please by all means, continue.

 

[HyperionX]

You're reaching a bit
If you read his posts you'd see he never said nor implied anything remotely similar to that.

It's good to address what people actually say instead of what you think they think.

Read his previous post in the reply chain. He more or less implied that he didn't give a shit about then negative effects of guns beyond his personal needs. He also rambled on about changing drugs laws or jail terms somehow solving this problem. Which I replied that he basically ask society to change in a substantial but not his own.

Maybe I'm going a step down the logic chain too quickly, but it is an accurate response.

 

[Panipal2009]

There is not much evidence that owning a gun will reduce the chance of being killed in a crime or provide meaningful self-defence.

Whose decision should that be? Theirs, or yours (or whoever imposes these laws you desire)?

The post above has it right. The murder rate in the US is really high and the only plausible explanation is our love affair with guns.

Yes, gangbangers contribute nothing to this. It&#8217;s 100% the fault of lawful gun owners. Nice ploy, that, where you blame A for what B gets up to, because playing fair by A won&#8217;t get you what you want.

So gun control is not really a position of fear but rather one of rationality.

<Architest>&#8217;Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.&#8217;</Architect>

No sorry, there&#8217;s no getting around the fact that the gun control movement is driven by fear and panic of what you imagine other people might do. Like when your ilk promises wild West shootouts in the streets every day (that don&#8217;t happen) which is nothing more than (trying to whip up) fear and hysteria. Like when your ilk flings around accusations of &#8216;paranoia&#8217; so often that it becomes plain you&#8217;re simply projection your own feelings of fear, that motivate you, to avoid having to face them.

in EVIL GUN CONTROL places like the UK, you can obtain a firearm for protection if you have received a credible threat against you.

Actually I think you&#8217;ll find that chief constables never, ever, grant licences for handguns where the reason given has anything to do with self-defence. You can of course send a begging letter to the home Secretary, who&#8217;d be perfectly willing to oblige as long as your name begins with &#8216;Sir&#8217;.

Or you could share with us details of all those victims of stalkers or ongoing violent harassment who&#8217;ve successfully managed to get blood out of a stone. Go on. I&#8217;ll wait.

you can&#8217;t just get a firearm because you&#8217;re paranoid about being mugged. It&#8217;s a need-to-have basis, not a &#8220;Just-in-case&#8221; basis.

Interesting. Perhaps you could tell us how you&#8217;ve decided that &#8216;just-in-case&#8217; makes a person&#8217;s life less valuable than &#8216;need-to-have&#8217;. I mean, I&#8217;d have said that a person&#8217;s life was equally valuable in both instances, could you explain to us why that&#8217;s incorrect?

And that takes us to the question of, can the authorities give a 100% guarantee that nobody will ever fall victim to serious violent crime? No, of course they can&#8217;t. So then, why the fuck are they interfering with people being able to deal with those risks for themselves? You&#8217;re right about one thing though, that is evil.

Also, not wanting to be defenceless against violence doesn&#8217;t make you &#8216;paranoid&#8217;. Would you say having a fire extinguisher at home makes someone paranoid about being burned to death in a fire? People carry for defence because, having thought about it, suffering violence if it should occur seems tremendously unappealing&#8230;and you&#8230;don&#8217;t&#8230;understand that. You don&#8217;t understand people not wanting to suffer harm at the hands of violent people! D&#8217;you ever think maybe there&#8217;s something wrong with you?

It&#8217;s funny, in the latest &#8216;lolbertarian&#8217; thread there&#8217;s a bit in the OP about how liberals are &#8216;more empathic&#8217;&#8230;which is being decidedly disproven in this very thread. Not a lot of empathy and understanding demonstrating in thinking wanting to defend oneself from harm = paranoia, is there?

He more or less implied that he didn't give a shit about then negative effects of guns beyond his personal needs.

Whereas you care deeply about the negative effects of gun control/victim disarmament beyond your own personal need to feel (rather than be) safe, right? And that's why you're just full of ideas about how to mitigate the downside of victim disarmament, like the equivalent of gun owners promoting safe gun handling, right?

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Was aired in 1995. Nice try with that 17 year old data. lol

I'll look into this and see if you can still do straw purchases to this day. Would you like to answer this, or would you like me to dig more?

You sourced something based on a Michael Bloomberg investigation LOL

Did you even WATCH the video? This was not a study. This was reality. It happened. It was recorded on video. You can see it with your own eyes. Hidden cameras caught several transactions where the seller sold guns to the buyer. The buyer even told the seller that he would not pass the screening process. The buyer sold the guns anyway. KNOWINGLY sold. And it's LEGAL. YOU ARE WRONG.

So sorry to tell you but I know a lot about the laws in this country, you know very little though about proper sourcing of your information and who to get you info from and US Gun Laws.

Guy with a camera. Recorded for everybody to see. How do you deny that?

You cannot knowingly sell to a prohibited person...Gamieguy was wrong.

Keep moving those goalposts. I like how we've gone from "you can't sell guns to a prohibited person" to "you can't knowingly sell guns to a prohibited" since you were proven wrong. Slimy and weaselly bullshit at its very best...

 

[Messypandas]

But "Ban all teh bad things because guns are all bad all of them always!" just doesn't vibe with me. I'm not a pacifist.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Okay, I can see that I'm going to have to take a different approach here. It's useless to post a bunch of information in a single post because Manos just selectively picks what he wants and then ignores what he doesn't like. He's incapable of discerning the relevant information from the irrelevant information. I am willing to give props where props are due though. So kudos to Manos for perfecting the art of distraction and misdirection. For example, in a video that clearly shows a buyer KNOWINGLY and LEGALLY selling a firearm to someone without a background check (multiple instances of this with different sellers), the only thing that Manos got out of it was "LOL! Michael Bloomberg! LOL! You can't knowingly sell guns to prohibited individuals! LOL!". We've now entered the realm of willful ignorance. Sad, but it is what it is. As such, let's try doing this step by step and see what happens:

STEP 1: Manos, did you watch that video?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Okay, I can see that I'm going to have to take a different approach here. It's useless to post a bunch of information in a single post because Manos just selectively picks what he wants and then ignores what he doesn't like. He's incapable of discerning the relevant information from the irrelevant information. I am willing to give props where props are due though. So kudos to Manos for perfecting the art of distraction and misdirection. For example, in a video that clearly shows a buyer KNOWINGLY and LEGALLY selling a firearm to someone without a background check (multiple instances of this with different sellers), the only thing that Manos got out of it was "LOL! Michael Bloomberg! LOL! You can't knowingly sell guns to prohibited individuals! LOL!". We've now entered the realm of willful ignorance. Sad, but it is what it is. As such, let's try doing this step by step and see what happens:

STEP 1: Manos, did you watch that video?

Yeah snd he BROKE the law if that is what occured. Though anything coming from bloomberg is suspect. Its like BreitBer and his Obama tape. LOL But the BATFE should investigate the person for violating Federal Laws. I dont see what the issue is

Do you really think a .50 cal can shoot down a helicopter like its a Manpad? I guess those Hawkens are really bad since theu were .54 cal...and you can get them in the mail with no 4473 and background check!

You know that according to the DOJ less thsn 1% of felons acquired guns from gun shows. 8% from retail stores. Thats it, the rest were stolen or illegaly acquired from people who shouldn't have given or sold the gun along with the black market.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

No sorry, there’s no getting around the fact that the gun control movement is driven by fear and panic of what you imagine other people might do. Like when your ilk promises wild West shootouts in the streets every day (that don’t happen) which is nothing more than (trying to whip up) fear and hysteria. Like when your ilk flings around accusations of ‘paranoia’ so often that it becomes plain you’re simply projection your own feelings of fear, that motivate you, to avoid having to face them.

This really works both ways though. Both sides of the argument are motivated by fear of what other people might do. Manos worries about not being able to protect himself, yet he has never used his gun before in this manner. We worry about shooting sprees resulting in mass murders which happen far too frequently. It's paranoia on both sides of the argument.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You know that according to the DOJ less thsn 1% of felons acquired guns from gun shows. 8% from retail stores? Thats it, the rest were stolen or illegaly acquired from people who shouldn't have given or sold the gun along with the black markeu.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

http://www.dontlie.org/FAQ.cfm

What is a straw purchase?

A straw purchase is an illegal firearm purchase where the actual buyer of the gun, being unable to pass the required federal background check or desiring to not have his or her name associated with the transaction, uses a proxy buyer who can pass the required background check to purchase the firearm for him/her. It is highly illegal and punishable by a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison.

What percentage of criminals obtain their firearms from straw purchases?

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street. Less than 8.5 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from straw purchases.

Can the firearms criminals purchase illegally on the street come from straw purchases?

According to the ATF, the average "time to recovery" (the time span between the initial purchase of a firearm to the time that it is used in a crime) is more than 10 years. This tells us that criminals are using older, recycled firearms, not newer firearms bought from licensed retailers. So, unless you believe that criminals are buying firearms only to use them a decade after the purchase, it is clear that straw purchasing is not a common method for criminals to obtain guns.

If few criminals obtain their firearms via straw purchasing, why does the firearms industry spend so much time and money on the Don't Lie program?

The firearms industry takes very seriously the criminal acquisition and misuse of its products. While there is nothing the industry can do to stop a criminal from stealing a firearm or buying one on the street illegally, the industry can make sure that firearms dealers are as prepared as possible to recognize and stop any would-be straw purchaser. Even if the number of criminals who obtain their firearms through straw purchasing is very low, through awareness programs such as Don't Lie, that number could fall even more.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940

Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D.

November 4, 2001 NCJ 189369

Describes firearm use of State and Federal prison inmates. Data are from the Surveys of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. These surveys of nationally-representative samples of prison inmates in 1997 asked inmates about their use of firearms during their current offense. Topics of this BJS Special Report include types of firearms used, characteristics of inmates using firearms, why and where inmates used their firearms, and where they obtained their firearms.

Highlights include the following:

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.
Press Release
PDF (120K)
ASCII file (47K)
Spreadsheet (Zip format 39K)
Codebooks and Datasets
To order paper version

Help for using BJS products

About the Source Data
Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (SISCF)
To cite this product, use the following link:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940

View All Publications and Products

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt

Percent of State inmates
possessing a firearm
Source of gun 1997 1991
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Purchased from -- 13.9 20.8
Retail store 8.3 14.7
Pawnshop 3.8 4.2
Flea market 1.0 1.3
Gun show 0.7 0.6
Friends or family 39.6 33.8
Street/illegal source 39.2 40.8

It was already less than 8.5 percent in 1997 and gun shows less than .7

Looks like most criminals get their guns from illegal sources or friends and family who shouldn't have given them a gun in the first place but not straw purchases.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Yeah snd he BROKE the law if that is what occured. Though anything coming from bloomberg is suspect. Its like BreitBer and his Obama tape. LOL But the BATFE should investigate the person for violating Federal Laws. I dont see what the issue is

Do you really think a .50 cal can shoot down a helicopter like its a Manpad? I guess those Hawkens are really bad since theu were .54 cal...and you can get them in the mail with no 4473 and background check!

Ahhh, see? We're already getting somewhere with this new tactic. Okay, so you did watch the video. Good. Let's get something out of the way first so that we can eliminate the distraction and misdirection attempts. I don't give a flying fuck whether a .50 cal can shoot down a helicopter or not. And whether it can or not does not negate the fact that guns are being sold KNOWINGLY to criminals. It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to my argument and you are harping on it as a means of distraction and misdirection from the big picture. Also, you have moved the goalposts... AGAIN. Now, apparently, you are requiring that the transaction has to be legal. This is backpedaling. But I'll still accept it, even though it is weaselly. All right, that's out of the way. You seem to be concerned that this video was made by Michael Bloomberg.

STEP 2: Manos, was this video made by Michael Bloomberg?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Ahhh, see? We're already getting somewhere with this new tactic. Okay, so you did watch the video. Good. Let's get something out of the way first so that we can eliminate the distraction and misdirection attempts. I don't give a flying fuck whether a .50 cal can shoot down a helicopter or not.

Why did you bold it then? LOL

And whether it can or not does not negate the fact that guns are being sold KNOWINGLY to criminals. It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to my argument

It kind of does since it shows you have no knowledge of firearm laws or firearms. Besides those acts you complain of should have been investigated. Talk to the BATFE about enforcing existing laws before asking for new ones.

All right, that's out of the way. You seem to be concerned that this video was made by Michael Bloomberg.

STEP 2: Manos, was this video made by Michael Bloomberg?

Yep, paid for and made with agents under the pay and employ of Michael Bloomberg.

It should be mentioned his agents had no legal authority to conduct his "sting" so they themselves should have been investigated too for criminal acts.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

You know that according to the DOJ less thsn 1% of felons acquired guns from gun shows. 8% from retail stores? Thats it, the rest were stolen or illegaly acquired from people who shouldn't have given or sold the gun along with the black markeu.

So the less than 1% that acquired guns from gun shows and the 8% from retail stores were regular citizens, or were they convicted felons? When you say "felons" in this statement, does it refer to regular citizens who bought guns by these means and then became felons by using these guns, or does it refer to already existing felons who were able to buy guns by these means? The statement needs to be more specific.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

So the less than 1% that acquired guns from gun shows and the 8% from retail stores were regular citizens, or were they convicted felons? When you say "felons" in this statement, does it refer to regular citizens who bought guns by these means and then became felons by using these guns, or does it refer to already existing felons who were able to buy guns by these means? The statement needs to be more specific.

Read the studies below the whole criminals getting guns with retail and gun show straw purchases is a myth.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I've no doubt you have a liberal position overall. However, I've seen your position on gun control from a number of people before, and yours isn't particularly unique. It's also one that's generally associated with conservatism in both mannerism and philosophy.

No shit. I never said my position was unique. I know it's not. Neither is yours. Why even bring that up when it's a given on both sides of this debate. What, I'm not suppose to take a position I agree with because it happens to cross a line on the political spectrum? What a narrow minded thing to think, lol. Do you tow the "Liberal" line across the board "just because" without actually asking yourself if you agree or disagree? This isn't about liberal or conservative to me. Drop the labels.

So all societal ills are problems that people other than gun owners have to deal with? And that any problematic laws or culture issues, must be change in a way that affect millions people, but they cannot affect gun owners? Are gun rights really that important to you?

Oh stop. I didn't say that. My point is law abiding gun owners aren't the reason why criminals are picking up weapons and using them. We can address a huge myriad of reasons why crime is what it is and deal with it and poverty together as a society without insisting that people give up their 2nd Amendment Rights.

But is that's what your argument is really about? I assume by "affect" you essentially mean "disarm", correct? That's what you're dancing around here, right? In your mind legal, law following gun owners should give up their right to self defense for the "greater good"? Right? Just so we're clear?

If you don't like that being called a right wing position, then you should settle for it being a highly introverted one.

My position is that I have a fundamental right to protect myself and my family. Period. I'm not picking up my shotgun and going on a killing spree so why am I being put on the spot as if my ownership of my gun somehow is making some douchebag pick up a fucking sawed off and kill a store clerk? Why the default association? Because we both own guns and without them he wouldn't rob and steal? Because it'd make robbing and stealing a bit harder? Because then he couldn't kill people via any other means? No. I'll never ever agree ever that a decent, mentally stable, responsible person should be forced to completely give up their 2A rights. Ever.

As far as the thread topic specifically. If your point were valid then non of those school shooting would have happened since they were just about ALL gun free zones. Didn't seem to work, did it? Maybe someone with a gun would have kept the body count far lower. Maybe not. But we'll never know.

I agree. If someone commits a murder you don't make murder MORE fucking illegal? Do you? You find the murderer and deal with them. But that seems to be what people want to do with the Gun laws on the books. Criminals ignore gun rules? ADD MORE GUN RULES!!!!!

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Why did you bold it then? LOL


It kind of does since it shows you have no knowledge of firearm laws or firearms. Besides those acts you complain of should have been investigated. Talk to the BATFE about enforcing existing laws before asking for new ones.




Yep, paid for and made with agents under the pay and employ of Michael Bloomberg.

It should be mentioned his agents had no legal authority to conduct his "sting" so they themselves should have been investigated too for criminal acts.

Awesome! This new approach is much better now that we can focus on one point at a time. Let's continue. First, let's eliminate the ongoing distraction and misdirection techniques that you are employing. You've had free reign to use them up to this point, but no more. I am going to ignore your douchey attempts at distraction and misdirection as they are irrelevant to the argument at hand. Okay then! This video was recorded and aired on the Today Show on NBC. This video mentions that "in new york, mayor michael bloomberg led another investigation". It would appear that the Bloomberg investigation is a completely different entity altogether from THIS video. THIS video appears to be an independent production by NBC that is in no way affiliated with Bloomberg.

STEP 3: Was THIS video made by Bloomberg or was it made by NBC and conducted in a manner similar to a completely different Bloomberg production?

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Read the studies below the whole criminals getting guns with retail and gun show straw purchases is a myth.

This entire study concerns inmates in prisons. We're looking for stats regarding how convicted criminals who are back out on the streets can obtain guns without a background check. I'll keep looking.

On a serious note: Thanks for answering each of my step-by-step questions so far. It's WAY too easy to get sidetracked otherwise.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Awesome! This new approach is much better now that we can focus on one point at a time.

Step 1:Do you think a .50 cal can can bring down a helicopter and if not why did you bold the article?

I am going to ignore your douchey attempts at distraction and misdirection as they are irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Because you are to scared to answer them. Why are you going to dodge answering the questions?

Step 2:Why is it irrelvent to point out that the action you are championing was an illegal act under existing laws and should have been already investigated?

Step 3:Do you know in Canada many long gun sales need no paperwork and can be between private indivduals with no background run?

Step 4:Why are prison inmates, many who are not first time offenders NOT relevent to how convicted criminals get guns without background checks?

Step 5: Why is it that "Assualt Weapons" are such a big deal to you, when rifles (which includes bolt action rifles, rimfire rifles, and Ruger 10/22s ALONG with AK and ARs) caused only 358 deaths in 2010. Despite the fact that Knives or cutting instruments, caused 1,704, Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) caused 540, and Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) caused 745.

Step 6:Why does Canada allow sale of such guns as ARs, IMI Tavor, Super Kriss, and Short Barrell Shotguns (catheogrized as unrestricted firearms in the case of SBS)?

Step 7:How do you refute or even react to statements by the main critics of John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime (which I do not subsribe too) saying that conceal carry laws DO NOT increase crimes and lead to bloodbaths on the street?

 

[Messypandas]

I agree. If someone commits a murder you don't make murder MORE fucking illegal? Do you? You find the murderer and deal with them. But that seems to be what people want to do with the Gun laws on the books. Criminals ignore gun rules? ADD MORE GUN RULES!!!!!

If your country has 45x the homicide rate with firearms of other industrialised nations you should probably - you know - look into addressing that. Banning the sale of and destroying existing firearms would probably help.

Or you can sing la la la with your fingers in your ears and cry about gun restrictions encroaching your "human rights" whilst massacre after massacre occurs on a seemingly monthly basis in your country.

The last notable School Shooting in the U.K was Dunblane in 1996
Since 1996 alone the U.S has had 88 notable school shootings

Shit I almost lost count there was so many. 6 this year alone. Disgusting. It seemingly doesn't sink in with people until it personally and irreparably affects them. But hey, as long as you have your 2A freedoms right?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

If your country has 45x the homicide rate with firearms of other industrialised nations you should probably - you know - look into addressing that.

If the overall rate of homicides 45X and not 4X you might have a point...but it isn't, so you don't.

Banning the sale of and destroying existing firearms would probably help.

Which you can't propose a means of actually doing that would work in the United States that wouldn't take "Decades" or provoke needless bloodshed. You also can't show how banning handguns helped make the murder rate lower in any large degree than European countries that allow handgun ownership.

Shit I almost lost count there was so many. 6 this year alone. Disgusting. It seemingly doesn't sink in with people until it personally and irreparably affects them. But hey, as long as you have your 2A freedoms right?

In a nation of how many people and how many have died? You are no better than the people who scream we need zero tolerance because of the epidemic of school shootings.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Is this really legal?

Guns for Cash! No Background Check, no ID, AND IT'S ALL LEGAL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgr_tw79Q&feature=related

 

[Mammoth Jones]

If your country has 45x the homicide rate with firearms of other industrialised nations you should probably - you know - look into addressing that. Banning the sale of and destroying existing firearms would probably help.

When we address:

-Poverty
-The disparity in earning capability in the middle and lower income class
-Gender inequality in the workforce
-Absent father not raising their kids
-The drug war that keeps a system full of young no violent drug offenders and turns em vicious bitter people with no hope of meaningful employment

I'll be more than willing to sit down and discuss the role of firearm ownership in that utopia.

Or you can sing la la la with your fingers in your ears and cry about gun restrictions encroaching your "human rights" whilst massacre after massacre occurs on a seemingly monthly basis in your country.

You know what happened yesterday? Tens of millions of legal gun owners stored their firearms safely and nothing bad happened. If there were a news article for every gun that didn't go off you wouldn't have enough time to read it in your lifetime. You can sensationalize it or put it in perspective. Millions of millions of safe firearms vs a lunatic and the millions should give up their rights? No.

The last notable School Shooting in the U.K was Dunblane in 1996
Since 1996 alone the U.S has had 88 notable school shootings

Shit I almost lost count there was so many. 6 this year alone. Disgusting. It seemingly doesn't sink in with people until it personally and irreparably affects them. But hey, as long as you have your 2A freedoms right?

How about the last notable stabbing? Not the the two are on the same level, but don't sit there as if guns are the sole reason why crime is what it is. You want to address ONE symptom. I'm saying address the problem.

My thing is taking away MY gun isn't going to do jack. piss or shit to stop someone else from picking up a gun and blowing someone's head the fuck off. Why you continue to equate the two is beyond me.

Don't bitch at me. Go bitch at the criminals and find out WHY they're doing what they're doing. Guns are the problem? Just guns? That's the main problem? No lack of mental health care? No lack of affordable mental health care? Not the rampant financial desperation some feel that picking violence and robbery is the only answer?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Is this really legal?

Guns for Cash! No Background Check, no ID, AND IT'S ALL LEGAL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgr_tw79Q&feature=related

Uploaded by BradyCampaign on Nov 13, 2009
LOL

Step 1:Do you think a .50 cal can can bring down a helicopter and if not why did you bold the article?


Step 2:Why is it irrelvent to point out that the action you are championing was an illegal act under existing laws and should have been already investigated?

Step 3:Do you know in Canada many long gun sales need no paperwork and can be between private indivduals with no background run?

Step 4:Why are prison inmates, many who are not first time offenders NOT relevent to how convicted criminals get guns without background checks?

Step 5: Why is it that "Assualt Weapons" are such a big deal to you, when rifles (which includes bolt action rifles, rimfire rifles, and Ruger 10/22s ALONG with AK and ARs) caused only 358 deaths in 2010. Despite the fact that Knives or cutting instruments, caused 1,704, Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) caused 540, and Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) caused 745.

Step 6:Why does Canada allow sale of such guns as ARs, IMI Tavor, Super Kriss, and Short Barrell Shotguns (catheogrized as unrestricted firearms in the case of SBS)?

Step 7:How do you refute or even react to statements by the main critics of John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime (which I do not subsribe too) saying that conceal carry laws DO NOT increase crimes and lead to bloodbaths on the street?

 

[travisbickle]

When we address:

-Poverty
-The disparity in earning capability in the middle and lower income class
-Gender inequality in the workforce
-Absent father not raising their kids
-The drug war that keeps a system full of young no violent drug offenders and turns em vicious bitter people with no hope of meaningful employment

I'll be more than willing to sit down and discuss the role of firearm ownership in that utopia.

You need a gun to protect you from the poor, women, people raised fatherless , and convicted drug offenders?

 

[Messypandas]

You know what happened yesterday? Tens of millions of legal gun owners stored their firearms safely and nothing bad happened. If there were a news article for every gun that didn't go off you wouldn't have enough time to read it in your lifetime. You can sensationalize it or put it in perspective. Millions of millions of safe firearms vs a lunatic and the millions should give up their rights? No.

Nobody has to bury their child over a successful gun story.

Don't bitch at me. Go bitch at the criminals and find out WHY they're doing what they're doing. Guns are the problem? Just guns? That's the main problem? No lack of mental health care? No lack of affordable mental health care? Not the rampant financial desperation some feel that picking violence and robbery is the only answer?

Nobodies bitching at anyone so take it down a notch son. This is civil discourse.

You're absolutely right we should address and treat the factors that prompt an individual to walk into a school with the intent to hurt others. That's undeniable and - dare I say it in a Manos thread - obvious. You'll get no argument from me. What we want to do is remove the conveniences that make mowing down handfuls of people in a public place as easy as holding a trigger. Wanna know how many people James Holmes can wound with a gun? 71 Wanna hedge bets at how many he could have hurt with a knife? 5? 6 if the skinny guy was lucky? How many of those were likely to die. We'll never know, but I'd bet the house it would be a damn-sight shorter than 12

If the overall rate of homicides 45X and not 4X you might have a point...but it isn't, so you don't.

In a thread about guns i mention gun statistics and Manos says they're irrelevant.

Which you can't propose a means of actually doing that would work in the United States that wouldn't take "Decades" or provoke needless bloodshed. You also can't show how banning handguns helped make the murder rate lower in any large degree than European countries that allow handgun ownership.

No you made a baseless claim with no factual evidence saying it wouldn't work which is now undeniable proof apparently, and you quote "decades" like its a bad thing. And wheres the needless bloodshed? Oh yeah, another product of your deluded fantasies that is now accepted as fact.

I'd say 88 school shootings in 16 years is needless bloodshed.

In a nation of how many people and how many have died? You are no better than the people who scream we need zero tolerance because of the epidemic of school shootings.

shit 155,000 people will die everyday regardless of anything we do Manos, why outlaw anything right?

 

[trineo_feo]

I think that there are people in this thread that think that owning guns is a basic human right like free expresion and shit lol

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

In a thread about guns i mention gun statistics and Manos says they're irrelevant.

You use it to present and make false allusions about homicide rates in the two countries

No you made a baseless claim with no factual evidence saying it wouldn't work which is now undeniable proof apparently, and you quote "decades" like its a bad thing. And wheres the needless bloodshed? Oh yeah, another product of your deluded fantasies that is now accepted as fact.

No, you are the one who used a disarmement agreement reached as part of the Good Friday Accords, and not via legilsation and dealing with disarming a terorist group.

I'd say 88 school shootings in 16 years is needless bloodshed.

In a country of 311,591,917, an average of 5.5 school shootings (which is a nebulous term that you do not define) seems pretty low.

shit 155,000 people will die everyday regardless of anything we do Manos, why outlaw anything right?

You have no real arguments left anymore do you?

 

[trineo_feo]

You use it to present and make false allusions about homicide rates in the two countries


No, you are the one who used a disarmement agreement reached as part of the Good Friday Accords, and not via legilsation and dealing with disarming a terorist group.


In a country of 311,591,917, an average of 5.5 school shootings (which is a nebulous term that you do not define) seems pretty low.


You have no real arguments left anymore do you?

Fucking lol. Yes, compared with South Africa and El Salvador, it's low.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Fucking lol. Yes, compared with South Africa and El Salvador, it's low.

How many schools are their in the United States?
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

Public Schools 98,706
Postsecondary Title IV institutions 6,632

So on average 5.5 school shooting incididents occured in 5.5 schools out of the 105,338 schools in the US. Yes that's pretty low.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Step 1:Do you think a .50 cal can can bring down a helicopter and if not why did you bold the article?

I really don't know. Honest. The seller of this gun said that it could. I bolded that part in order to point out that it's a POWERFUL GUN being sold in a PARKING LOT. It's a powerful gun, right? That's my point. Plus, this is irrelevant and yet another distraction to the argument that I was trying to make.

Because you are to scared to answer them. Why are you going to dodge answering the questions?

Why would I be scared? The vast majority of your questions are irrelevant to the topic currently being discussed and serve only as a distraction from the big picture. I was simply hoping to cut to the chase. Obviously that's not going to happen.

Step 2:Why is it irrelvent to point out that the action you are championing was an illegal act under existing laws and should have been already investigated?

Are we talking about straw purchases? If so, then it WAS irrelevant... until you moved the goalposts. YOU claimed that GaimeGuy lied by saying that prohibited individuals can easily obtain guns. Straw purchases are a way for prohibited individuals to obtain guns and this was pointed out to you. It was only AFTER this was pointed out to you that you subsequently moved the goalposts and revised your statement to include the term "legally".

Step 3:Do you know in Canada many long gun sales need no paperwork and can be between private indivduals with no background run?

No, I did not know this. Did you know that you can do the same in the US? Plus, this is irrelevant and yet another distraction to the argument that I was trying to make.

Step 4:Why are prison inmates, many who are not first time offenders NOT relevent to how convicted criminals get guns without background checks?

It wasn't clear to me in that study that some of the inmates were not first time offenders (I asked you earlier to clarify this), thus I wasn't sure whether these people had acquired guns before or after being legally labelled as criminals. I'm not sure why you would point this out though, because it actually debunks your claims that criminals cannot get guns. Funny that...

Step 5: Why is it that "Assualt Weapons" are such a big deal to you, when rifles (which includes bolt action rifles, rimfire rifles, and Ruger 10/22s ALONG with AK and ARs) caused only 358 deaths in 2010. Despite the fact that Knives or cutting instruments, caused 1,704, Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) caused 540, and Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) caused 745.

ALL guns are a big deal to me. Guns are designed to kill and maim and injure. The other objects that you mention all have non-lethal practical primary functions and were not designed for the purposes of killing, maiming or injuring. Not to mention that they are far less lethal than guns when used as weapons. Plus, this is irrelevant and yet another distraction to the argument that I was trying to make.

Step 6:Why does Canada allow sale of such guns as ARs, IMI Tavor, Super Kriss, and Short Barrell Shotguns (catheogrized as unrestricted firearms in the case of SBS)?

I don't know. All I know is that our gun-related homicide rate on a per-capita basis is 6X better than yours, therefore we are doing something that you are not. Something right. Plus, this is irrelevant and yet another distraction to the argument that I was trying to make.

Step 7:How do you refute or even react to statements by the main critics of John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime (which I do not subsribe too) saying that conceal carry laws DO NOT increase crimes and lead to bloodbaths on the street?

I'm going to assume that by "main critics of", you actually mean "advocates of", otherwise your question makes no sense. If so, I have no need to refute or react to these statements because several other people in this thread have already refuted and reacted in a convincing way. Therefore, my refutation and reaction is the same as theirs. There's no need for piling on. Plus, this is irrelevant and yet another distraction to the argument that I was trying to make.


There. Happy? Now you can focus again. Please take your Ritalin and answer STEP 3...

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Uploaded by BradyCampaign on Nov 13, 2009
LOL

Yes, while it may be funny, I asked you if it was legal? Who's not answering questions here? Is it legal?

 

[diehard]

Why do Canadians always say "you" when comparing themselves to the U.S.?

We're like a damn continent compared to you, population wise.

It's like comparing the State i live in (Utah) to Canada and saying Canada is doing something wrong because our gun homicides are lower than theirs.

 

[Messypandas]

In a country of 311,591,917, an average of 5.5 school shootings (which is a nebulous term that you do not define) seems pretty low.

Holy fuck.

How many schools are their in the United States?
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

Public Schools 98,706
Postsecondary Title IV institutions 6,632

So on average 5.5 school shooting incididents occured in 5.5 schools out of the 105,338 schools in the US. Yes that's pretty low.

As opposed to the U.K average of 0 shootings per 24,605 16 years running. Maybe next year we can half that!

You have no real arguments left anymore do you?

The only arguments left to make would be in regards to your sanity Manos

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I really don't know. Honest. The seller of this gun said that it could. I bolded that part in order to point out that it's a POWERFUL GUN being sold in a PARKING LOT. It's a powerful gun, right? That's my point. Plus, this is irrelevant and yet another distraction to the argument that I was trying to make.

You don't know? Really you didn't bother to look up anything about the gun? A 30-06 hunting rifle is powerful and you can buy that in the Parkling lot in Canda.

Also how many crimes have been committed in the US using a .50 Caliber Rifle? How many?

Why would I be scared?

Because you're being exposed.

Are we talking about straw purchases? If so, then it WAS irrelevant... until you moved the goalposts. YOU claimed that GaimeGuy lied by saying that prohibited individuals can easily obtain guns. Straw purchases are a way for prohibited individuals to obtain guns and this was pointed out to you. It was only AFTER this was pointed out to you that you subsequently moved the goalposts and revised your statement to include the term "legally".

They cannot easily get them from legal means as the Statistics showsed. They can also legally not get them in the first place.

I was right on all counts.

[qiote]No, I did not know this. Did you know that you can do the same in the US? [/quote]
Right so how can you claim there is something wrong unless you think guns and gun crime in Canada is a rampant problem. How many rifles were used in homoicides in Canada?

It wasn't clear to me in that study that some of the inmates were not first time offenders (I asked you earlier to clarify this), thus I wasn't sure whether these people had acquired guns before or after being legally labelled as criminals.

It doesn't matter. Criminals don't get guns from legal means

because it actually debunks your claims that criminals cannot get guns. Funny that...

No, it shows they can't in anymore than 10% of the time legally get guns. It proofs the overwhelming source of guns for criminals are illegal.

ALL guns are a big deal to me. Guns are designed to kill and maim and injure.

You've never hard of target guns or shotguns designed for clay shooting? I don't think those are designed to maim or kill/

The other objects that you mention all have non-lethal practical primary functions and were not designed for the purposes of killing, maiming or injuring. Not to mention that they are far less lethal than guns when used as weapons.

It shows you fixated on GUNS, and not CRIME. It exposes you as someone who doesn't care about the real issue and only on your fear of a tool.

I don't know.... Something right.

So perhaps the problem is the US needs to abloish laws on imported Semi-automatic rifles and barrel lengths?

I'm going to assume that by "main critics of", you actually mean "advocates of", otherwise your question makes no sense. If so, I have no need to refute or react to these statements because several other people in this thread have already refuted and reacted in a convincing way. Therefore, my refutation and reaction is the same as theirs. There's no need for piling on. Plus, this is irrelevant and yet another distraction to the argument that I was trying to make.

No I didn't, they are the main critics of John Lott's More Guns Less Crime Thesis. So stop ducking and answer the question.

There. Happy? Now you can focus again. Please take your Ritalin and answer STEP 3...

Stop ducking and answer the questions, we're just getting started.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Holy fuck.

Good to see you realize how low it is.

As opposed to the U.K average of 0 shootings per 24,605 16 years running. Maybe next year we can half that!

How about stabbings..from just this June.
Nottinghamshire police investigates claims that teenager stabbed at least 20 fellow pupils with medical needle
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/15/boy-arrested-school-needle-stabbings

The only arguments left to make would be in regards to your sanity Manos

Because you lack real ones to articulate.

 

[Messypandas]

How about stabbings..from just this June.
Nottinghamshire police investigates claims that teenager stabbed at least 20 fellow pupils with medical needle
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/15/boy-arrested-school-needle-stabbings

Nottinghamshire police said the boy was believed to have used a diabetic pen, which contains a short needle, in the incident at Toot Hill school in Bingham on Wednesday. The school described the instrument as a medical lancet, used to make small incisions. Parents have been informed and advised to get their children tested for infections, although the risk is low, the school said.

Oh my lord. That was really your best counter-argument? The medical pen would deliver a pin prick of blood at most. Risk of infection is low. Haha I hope you try to edit this

Tell me honestly. Would you rather be pricked with one of them or shot in the chest?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Oh my lord. That was really your best counter-argument? The medical pen would deliver a pin prick of blood at most. Risk of infection is low. Haha I hope you try to edit this

So being stabbed by someone with a contaminated needle is handwaved off...interesting, do you keep the knife states for the Met as a side job? lol

Tell me honestly. Would you rather be pricked with one of them or shot in the chest?

I wouldn't want either. I'd use the means available to protect myself.

 

[Kettch]

That mass casualty stabbing is horrifying. If only they'd had guns involved.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

That mass casualty stabbing is horrifying. If only they'd had guns involved.

Yeah I agree
Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

 

[Kettch]

Yeah I agree
Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

Yep. Somebody should've shot and killed that 14 year old stabbing boy. 5 day suspension from school outcome is a tragedy.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yep. Somebody should've shot and killed that 14 year old stabbing boy. 5 day suspension from school outcome is a tragedy.

Did you read the article?

 

[Messypandas]

I wouldn't want either. I'd use the means available to protect myself.

So in that situation, would you produce your gun to a 14 year old boy coming at you with a diabetic pen?

 

[pigeon]

Individual crazies are simply not a good gun control argument on either side. The vast majority of violent crimes happen in situations far removed from the classroom or movie theater -- to base a policy on the 0.01% of events that make the nightly news is frankly the height of privilege. Moreover, they're CRAZY. Sure, it's possible that somebody like James Holmes wouldn't have killed anybody if guns were banned. But, on the other hand, he might have killed MORE -- he built a bunch of bombs, remember? There's no good reason to assume such a policy would have the effects you're asserting.

 

[Kettch]

Did you read the article?

Reply to post about 0 mass shootings with article of a 0 death mass needle stabbing -> Accuse other of not reading an article.