# Anti-gun control folks, a question **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 25, 2005, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967 "2005-04-25T03:00:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/141 "2005-04-27T22:03:42Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Wait, we’re supposed to be getting hand-jobs out of this? Why didn’t somebody inform me of this earlier? So, by your own admission, you’re in the anti-gun camp? I’m glad to see you finally pick a side! Although it has been clearly evident from your history _exactly_ which side you’re on, so your “outting” comes as no great surprise to me. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/142 "2005-04-27T22:33:00Z")
Lighten up. It’s a fucking joke. I am not anti-gun. I am pro-reasonable gun control. I am decidedly anti-gun nut. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/143 "2005-04-27T22:53:30Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Lighten up. It’s a fucking joke. > > I am not anti-gun. I am pro-reasonable gun control. I am decidedly anti-gun nut. And what you call a “gun nut” is to me simply someone who has said, “I have had enough.” Enough of the distorions, enough with the lies, enough with the attacks; here I stand, and will move no more. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/144 "2005-04-27T22:54:57Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Do you have some evidence that these “dishonest people” are the prevalent, even a significant conduit of illegal firearms reaching the hardened criminals? Just because it is possible doesn’t make it probable, or even prevalent. Sigh. I never made any claim that they were. My sole intent in making my argument has been to advocate a position whereby the laws about selling handguns, especially in private sales, is made both stronger and more uniform. This way, we can be more certain that, when a handgun is found in the hands of someone who shouldn’t have one, that person has come by it illegally rather than by duping an honest citizen into making what that citizen believes to be a legal sale. > [@ExTank](#): > > And please don’t rely upon the Brady’s website for accurate information; they are renowned for distortions, ommissions, and outright lies. This, presumably, is in contrast to the pro-gun sites, which i’m sure are all models of probity and honesty, and completely free of any distortion. > [@ExTank](#): > > Case in point: > > Partially correct, inasmuch that there is already a _Federal_ requirement for all dealers to conduct background checks for _every sale_, regardless of venue, so there is no need for a Texas state law to require the same. Not all states duplicate every single federal law even if they must abide by them. > > There is no _Federal_ requirement for any private citizen (not-a-dealer) to conduct a background check on any _legal_ private transfer, as long as the sale is legal by federal law, which pretty much prohibits the sale of handguns to residents not of your home (resident) state. Even though I live less then 20 miles from my father, I cannot sell or transfer a handgun to him, as he lives in Illinois and I live in Missouri. There _may_ be Illinois and/or Missouri state laws to that same effect, but they are pointless to me, as I already know that the federal law prohibits the transfer. > > Some states do have additional requirements; in those instances, all private and dealer transactions must abide by those additional state laws/regulations as well as the federal. You’re kinda making my point for me here. There is, as you say, “no _Federal_ requirement for any private citizen (not-a-dealer) to conduct a background check on any _legal_ private transfer, as long as the sale is legal by federal law.” But the fact remains that there are areas of the law that allow private sales without background checks, and i don’t think this should be allowed anywhere, even if it’s only to someone else from the same state. I really don’t see the big deal about requiring these checks for _all_ purchases. You are free to disagree, but don’t try to steamroll me by pretending that the loopholes i’ve described don’t exist. > [@ExTank](#): > > Now, as a person who has attended hundreds of gun shows, I can tell you that the vast majority of sellers are actually FFL dealers, and as such, must conduct at a minimum the federally required criminal background check through NICS, or their state-agency equivalent. And your point is? The vast majority of prescribers and users of prescription drugs also conduct their transactions legally. Doesn’t mean that everyone does, or that dishonest people don’t try to get around the law. > [@ExTank](#): > > You have read it correctly, but that is only part of the gun-transaction equation, as I have stated above. I’m not sure how old that Texas law is (the mention of the Protective Order in section “e” _should_ make it fairly current), but current _federal_ law would prohibit the sale and hold you and the buyer criminally liable if the buyer told you or you otherwise knew that he was a prior felon, even if he was realesed from prison 50 years ago. But that raises the same question again: if he doesn’t tell me, how the hell am i supposed the know? If the law required checks on _all_ sales, private or otherwise, this uncertainty could be avoided or, at very least, reduced considerably. > [@ExTank](#): > > But again, there’s no indication from the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports that these “private transactions” are a primary, or even significant, source of the guns getting into the hands of criminals. What you have is an unfounded assertion from an extremely anti-gun organization, mixed liberally with half-truths and blatant (I would say deliberate) ommissions in order to paint a piture that simply doesn’t exist, and has no hard evidence from a creditable source that it does. And again, i never said they were the main source. My whole position is predicated on the belief that some people are going to engage in illegal activities, and we should do what we can to make that more difficult, and that we should also enact laws that draw a firmer distinction between legal and illegal transfer of weapons than currently exists in the case of private sales in states like Texas. > [@minty green](#): > > I am decidedly anti-gun nut. Did you mean “anti-anti-gun nut”? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/145 "2005-04-27T23:56:57Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Sigh. > > I never made any claim that they were. My sole intent in making my argument has been to advocate a position whereby the laws about selling handguns, especially in private sales, is made both stronger and more uniform. So, without any evidnece that there’s an _actual_ problem (just a theoretical one), you would have the laws re-written, and inconvenience millions of American citizens, just to calm your fears? > [@mhendo](#): > > This, presumably, is in contrast to the pro-gun sites, which i’m sure are all models of probity and honesty, and completely free of any distortion. Show where they’re wrong, I’ll admit it. In all my research, evrything I’ve found on pro-gun websites and from pro-gun organizations has been independently corroborated with sources such as the Justice Dept. (and it’s various agencies), FindLaw, the Supreme Court website, etc. Search my posts; you will not find a cite to a pro-gun website anywhere; that doesn’t mean that I don’t get information or ideas from them; just that I don’t post it up here without finding it somewhere else first and corroborating it. Unlike the anti-gun assholes of The Striaght Dope (like **Elvis** ), who routinely show up in these threads with their “facts” hot off the Brady website, and then get all miffed when no one will take them seriously. In fact, it is indicative of the liberal, intellectual double standard of The Straight Dope that anti-gun websites are routinely cited and expected to be taken at face value, but a pro-gun website is dismissed out-of-hand as “biased.” > [@mhendo](#): > > You’re kinda making my point for me here. There is, as you say, “no _Federal_ requirement for any private citizen (not-a-dealer) to conduct a background check on any _legal_ private transfer, as long as the sale is legal by federal law.” But the fact remains that there are areas of the law that allow private sales without background checks, and i don’t think this should be allowed anywhere, even if it’s only to someone else from the same state. I really don’t see the big deal about requiring these checks for _all_ purchases. You are free to disagree, but don’t try to steamroll me by pretending that the loopholes i’ve described don’t exist. And _you’re_ making my point for _me_: you’re whinging about some hypothetical (unproven) problem, not shown to be a creditable or even a marginal problem, and asserting (as your own opinion) the need to change our ways of conducting commerce to reduce or eliminate a problem that hasn’t been shown to even exist to any degree except in the minds of gun control organizations and people like you. > [@mhendo](#): > > And your point is? > > The vast majority of prescribers and users of prescription drugs also conduct their transactions legally. Doesn’t mean that everyone does, or that dishonest people don’t try to get around the law. The point is I have a shit-loads more experience with guns shows and the gun-purchasing process than you do, and that the “gun show loophole,” while a technical reality (inasmuch as no private citizen is required by Federal law to conduct Criminal Record Checks through NICS, whether they sell in a newspaper, by word-of-mouth, or at a gun show) is a chimera, a **bugaboo** , created out of whole-cloth by the Brady Campaign. You may call me a “liar,” but be prepared to back it up with some kind of proof. > [@mhendo](#): > > But that raises the same question again: if he doesn’t tell me, how the hell am i supposed the know? If the law required checks on _all_ sales, private or otherwise, this uncertainty could be avoided or, at very least, reduced considerably. Well, you _could_ ask him to produce a Criminal Record Check from your county courthouse or local police dept as a condition of the sale. I’ve requested them for about $20 from the Dallas County Courthouse before, but they are now available [online](http://www.dallascounty.org/applications/english/record-search/intro.html) for $5.50. They look like [this.](http://www.dallascounty.org/applications/english/record-search/criminalbg.jpg) Or you could start a petition to your state’s DMV to begin issuing driver’s licenses with prior felon notification printed on the driver’s license. As a free citizen, it is up to _you_ to make the effort to obey the law, or suffer the consequences when caught. If you aren’t comfortable with conducting the transaction, and are in fear of possible repercussions, get out of the private sales gun-selling business. > [@mhendo](#): > > And again, i never said they were the main source. My whole position is predicated on the belief that some people are going to engage in illegal activities, and we should do what we can to make that more difficult, and that we should also enact laws that draw a firmer distinction between legal and illegal transfer of weapons than currently exists in the case of private sales in states like Texas. Like, say, investigate, arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate criminal wrongdoers? _Without_ getting into the private affairs of every citizen who could _possibly_ do something wrong? Sounds like a recipe for a socialist police state. I’ll pass. Our current system of getting criminals to turn state’s evidence works fine; prosecutors just need to come down like a hammer on the buyers and suppliers of illegal guns, like with [Project](http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/html/project_exile.html) [Exile](http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyw/proj_exile.htm). And you also missed my point about Texas’ laws: those are _in addition to_ the federal laws, NOT in place of. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/146 "2005-04-28T00:10:52Z")
It occurs to me that you may be laboring under some misconceptionsabout the political entities we in the United States call “states.” Up through the first half of the 19th century, each state was pretty much its own sovereign “republic,” with certain political attributes (necessary for admission to the United States), but not necessarily required to be “uniform.” Indeed, even in these times of sweeping Federal powers, there is considerable difference in the political “tone” of the separate states, and their approaches to dealing with problems. Because of certain similarities in political structure, these approaches or methods will have certain attributes in common, even with sometimes radically different outcomes. For instance: California has banned private possession of fully-automatic weapons. Nevada, right next door, has not. California residents cannot, by federal or California law, travel to Nevada and purchase fully-automatic weapons; Nevada probably has no law prohibiting non-residents from purchasing fully-automatic weapons, as it is already prohibited by federal law, which all states must meet at a minimum. It might appear to a foreign observer (or a newcomer) that the states are merely smaller (and more manageable) political subdivisions of the United States, and that living in one state is no different than living in another, and for the most part, that is ture. But each state is somewhat unique in its political structure, its “culture” and history, and its approaches to the different problems facing society. Differences do exist, and a person could conceivably leave one state where a particular activity is pefectly legal, and go to another where it is a crime. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/147 "2005-04-28T00:57:33Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > And what you call a “gun nut” is to me simply someone who has said, “I have had enough.” > > Enough of the distorions, enough with the lies, enough with the attacks; here I stand, and will move no more. Persecuted much? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/148 "2005-04-28T01:45:30Z")
I think that rather like me, **ExTank** is really tired of the anti-gun bullshit that follows around the refrain of ‘reasonable gun control’. We’ve heard this phrase before, hundreds upon hundreds of times before from people like Sarah Brady. They’ve always meant ‘one step closer to a total ban than where we are right now.’ ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/149 "2005-04-28T02:25:10Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > And you also missed my point about Texas’ laws: those are _in addition to_ the federal laws, NOT in place of. Didn’t miss that at all; every point i made was made in full cognizance of this fact, as i’ve made very clear in my posts. I’m really not interested in debating any longer with someone who keeps misrepresenting my position. > [@ExTank](#): > > ``` > It occurs to me that you may be laboring under some misconceptions about the political entities we in the United States call "states." > > ``` Actually, i’d be willing to wager that i’m _at least_ as informed as you about the nature of states as political entities in Ameirca, and about the late eighteenth-century debates that determined the relationship between federal and state power in America. But as your main interest seems to be a pissing contest, and a sense of persecuted martyrdom, i’m not sure there’s any point in continuing with this. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/150 "2005-04-28T12:41:21Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Correct. Like I said, they determined that the “militia” clause provides a substantive limitation on the scope of the “keep and bear” clause, to wit, that the arms covered are only those that are suitable for militia use. Precisely. My point is that (contrary to widespread misinterpretations/misrepresentations) _Miller_ does not support any limitation on the **who** has the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment (i.e. it doesn’t deny that the right belongs to each individual), but rather supports a definition of the **scope** of that right (i.e. it indicates that the government can prohibit you from keeping a supply of bombs in the garage). ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/151 "2005-04-28T12:43:13Z")
> [@Mr. Krebbs](#): > > The National Guard did not exist when the Constitution was ratified, and didn’t for more than a century later (it was created January 1, 1903). It is not, as has been pointed out, an entity controlled by the states, but by the federal government. Which, if the Second Amendment **did** merely protect the rights of states to have their own militia forces, would be un-Constitutional to the point of totally negating the amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/152 "2005-04-28T12:50:01Z")
> [@Cynical Optimist](#): > > I’ve never been in a nuclear missile silo, but I suspect there’s more than one guy down there. [digression] My understanding is that nuclear launch controls are specifically designed to require at least two people to cooperate, to prevent unauthorized launches by someone whose brain has been tainted by impure bodily fluids. [/digression] ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/153 "2005-04-28T13:10:01Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But as your main interest seems to be a pissing contest, and a sense of persecuted martyrdom, i’m not sure there’s any point in continuing with this. > [@ExTank](#): > > Unlike the anti-gun assholes of The Striaght Dope (like Elvis), who routinely show up in these threads with their “facts” hot off the Brady website, and then get all miffed when no one will take them seriously. In fact, it is indicative of the liberal, intellectual double standard of The Straight Dope that anti-gun websites are routinely cited and expected to be taken at face value, but a pro-gun website is dismissed out-of-hand as “biased.” If I may make an observation here, it seems to me that some of the people participating in this thread are bemoaning the lack of decorum and civil opinion backed up by substantive unbiased citations. Surely that type of discourse isn’t routine here in the Pit and expectations that others adhere to it are misplaced. If one is genuinely seeking that brand of courteous argumentation, you should be eschewing this forum for Great Debates. This particular forum provides a much different setting where folks can yell at each other, stomp their feet, wave their fist in the air. In the midst of such, it seems to me, the expectations (probing questions, substantive responses, erudite opinions, instructional citations, tempered rhetoric) which are routine in GD simply cannot be reckoned on, and it is unreasonable in the extreme to request these things of your opposition. Even further, when you make these kinds of demands, to many—such as myself—you are the party who ends up looking rather foolish. It’s as if you’re asking someone to lower their voice—while yelling at them. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/154 "2005-04-28T13:21:18Z")
> [@Mr. Krebbs](#): > > **Mhendo,** I do understand that you are trying to put forth a reasonable manner in which law-abiding gun owners may sell their guns to other law-abiding citizens, while not to criminals. This is commenable. However, your idea simply would not work. Not only for the reason that **Arwin** postulated (though I highly doubt the accuracy of the “half million stolen” number), but also because someone who wishes to buy a gun illegally would have no qualms about purchasing a firearm that has already had its serial number removed. With about 236.000.000 guns out there, do you think 500.000 stolen is unlikely? Anyway, my source was an article from [the National Institute of Justice](http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt), referenced in the ‘What’s with the guns’ discussion thread. > [@article](#): > > Based on the NSPOF, an estimated 0.9 percent of all > gun-owning households (269,000) experienced the > theft of one or more firearms during 1994. About > 211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen > in noncommercial thefts that year, for a total of > 593,000 stolen firearms. Those estimates are > subject to considerable sampling error but are > consistent with earlier estimates of about half a > million guns stolen annually.[10] As to the serial number thing and more detail on guns travelling around in the U.S., [check this out](http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Kleck3.htm). (Also recommended reading for **Mhendo**.) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/155 "2005-04-28T13:42:21Z")
Quick disclaimer: I did indeed mistakenly attribute **ExTank** ’s words for **UncleBeer** ’s. You two do look so much alike when you’re covered with foam, but it’s my error nonetheless. > [@ExTank](#): > > So, what did _you_ Google to get the “American Voice” website to come up somewhere on the first page, which is about the only way you’d get it in “two seconds.” “State militia” “National Guard”. It ain’t that hard, amigo. > [@](#): > > And you keep completely ignoring the definition of militia; the National Guard is only _one_ component; and you completely ignore the case of Perpich v. Dept. of Defense If you’d actually read anything I’d said before teeing off on it, you’d notice that I had indeed noted that. If you’d read the cite as well, you’d know that the Supremes confirmed in it that the National Guard \*is \* the militia the Constitution calls for. Like it or not, that’s the fact. > [@](#): > > The errors in your views have been shown to be false with fact and cite Only in your dreams. > [@](#): > > Regulating and organizing the armed forces of the federal gov’t and of the respective states is at best tangentially related to gun control and the right to keep and bear Also in your dreams. What part of “The Law of the Land” do you not understand? > [@](#): > > You cite a pro-control website and expect anyone to take you \*seriously? That’s no more than a vehicle to cite the relevant Supreme Court rulings, which can be found in many places if you don’t like that one. Why can we not expect you to take the finality of Supreme Court rulings seriously? Is it that you simply hate America? Serioulsy, pal - if _ **UncleBeer** _ now thinks you’re being an intemperate fool, you’d really better go lie down, ya know? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/156 "2005-04-28T14:48:50Z")
Nice misunderstading of my post ya got there, Elvis? Does stupidity come naturally to you, or do you have to work at it? 'Cuz, _goddamn_, it oughtta hurt to be so stupid. I’m not complaining at all about the invective in this thread. I in fact said that the Pit was just the place for such and that it can be quite reliably predicted to occur in here. (Bright fucking deduction, eh?) What I **did** complain about are the calls for unbiased citations and the misplaced expectations some people seem to have for decorum—all while shouting at their opponents. > [@](#): > > Quick disclaimer: I did indeed mistakenly attribute ExTank’s words for UncleBeer’s. I’d thank you for this, but the stubborness you displayed in getting to this point seems to obviate the need for that. It is nice to see, however, that one may indeed make the horse drink after you’ve led him to the water. Even if it’s only a sip. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/157 "2005-04-28T15:14:24Z")
**Arwin** , thanks for posting your first link. I’ll buy it, though I honestly didn’t suspect the number of non-commercial gun thefts would be that high. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/158 "2005-04-28T15:33:34Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Does stupidity come naturally to you, or do you have to work at it? You’ve given me a lot to think about there. :rolleyes: Speaking of misunderstanding: > [@](#): > > What I **did** complain about are the calls for unbiased citations and the misplaced expectations some people seem to have for decorum—all while shouting at their opponents. And that is indeed what I summarized as your calling **ExTank** an intemperate fool. Now perhaps you’d better go lie down too. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/159 "2005-04-28T16:00:18Z")
> [@Mr. Krebbs](#): > > **Arwin** , thanks for posting your first link. I’ll buy it, though I honestly didn’t suspect the number of non-commercial gun thefts would be that high. Well, 0.9% isn’t that high, but since there are so many guns out there … The second link puts the number higher, btw: “The sources of guns are numerous, diverse, and diffuse, a state of affairs that should not be surprising in a nation with over 240 million guns circulating in private hands (Kleck 1997, p. 97), at least 750,000 of which are stolen each year” ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/160 "2005-04-28T16:10:23Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > If I may make an observation here, it seems to me that some of the people participating in this thread are bemoaning the lack of decorum and civil opinion backed up by substantive unbiased citations. Surely that type of discourse isn’t routine here in the Pit and expectations that others adhere to it are misplaced. If one is genuinely seeking that brand of courteous argumentation, you should be eschewing this forum for Great Debates. As a general principle, i completely agree with you. I’m not saying anyone is breaking any rules, or that abuse and foot-stomping has no place in the Pit. But i also believe that there’s no reason why the Pit cannot also contain reasonable argument. Pit threads tend to take on a life of their own—some are flame-fests from the beginning, while others follow a more temperate course. I’ve been known to disturb temperate threads with angry outbursts, so i’m not suggesting that i have some monopoly on moderation or anything. I’m just saying that, in some debates i’m in the mood for abuse and invective, and in others i’m not. I originally wasn’t going to weigh into this thread at all, largely because there’s a certain inevitability about the trajectory of Straight Dope Pit threads dealing with gun ownership. When i did decide to make some observations, i promised myself that i wasn’t going to start calling people “gun nuts” or ridicule their arguments out of hand, as i might once have done. I’ve already made clear that my own position on gun ownership has shifted somewhat over the past few years, from one of absolutist prohibition to one that would simply prefer a better and more nationally-consistent system of regulations. All my arguments in this thread have been made in a good-faith attempt to combine my own revised position with an understanding of how gun owners feel and my beliefs about what constitute reasonable restrictions and legislation. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my position, but when some people started insinuating that my genuine attempts to outline my position constitute simple stupidity, lying, disingenuousness, or bias, then i lost my inclination to participate in this particular thread. I guess i should have stuck with my first inclination, and just left people like **ExTank** to wallow in his sense of persecution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967.md?page=9)