It’s really amazing! You warned us and things played out exactly the way you said that they would and precisely for the very reasons you said they would.
According to you and no other available evidence.
Remember when you were whining like a bitch about other people employing post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacies? Remember all of that shrill screaming about how that wouldn’t even fly in our Great Debates forum?
Now you’re rolling in it like a pig in shit.
Only to the extent that my sides hurt from laughing.
All you’ve got is a few talking points you cling to hysterically, repeating them mantrically, in panic born of fear of a world you cannot understand. You are unable to discuss any related topic rationally or morally, so you have to resort to personal attacks, not realizing that to do so is to concede. Or maybe you do think yelling “Feinstein! snickersnicker” is an argument.
You call a desire to reduce their number and restrict their availability to sociopaths and others with known problems vilifying the objects themselves? No, sadly, if you don’t get it yet then you’ll never be able to.
You know, you are not informed if what you informed yourself with is wrong. You are not more informed about gun control than I am.
What’s this “you guys” business? If you read through Lumpy’s thread here about dopers’ attitudes for gun controls, you’d see that the pro-regulation side is all over the map, from people like BobLibDem who want to ban/confiscate all guns, to people like drewtwo99 who are pro-regulation while still wanting to maintain a small arsenal, to people like you, etc. Good friend of mine who sleeps with a loaded Kimber on his nightstand told me that he supports an AWB.
There are various gun control movements happening in various states, most successfully in NY and MD, spearheaded by different groups and with different goals. We’ve had two major pieces of legislation attempted in congress by different people. Maybe your problem is that you think the gun control side is having meetings and we’re all deciding to proceed with legislation according to some grand plan. Guess what? BobLibDem, drewtwo99, you, me, none of us have a direct line into Diane Feinstein’s office, and she didn’t ask any of us before drafting her bill. It’s not what I would have picked, I’m sure it’s not what a lot of people would have picked. But once it’s out there, what are you going to do? She’s an elected official and it’s her prerogative to introduce what she wants.
Meanwhile, and here’s where your delusion really shows itself, the conservative voice is mostly in lockstep. Your own thread basically proved it. Conservatives will take no compromise on gun control, will give no inch, will propose no legislation of their own, will vote down anything that remotely smells like gun control because gun control leads to confiscation, and 'merica, and fuck if I know how they’ve managed to make it seem like owning a gun is a de facto requirement for citizenship but there you have it. Nothing is going to get through the house. The democrats aren’t as organized as you seem to think they are, but even if they were, it wouldn’t matter. Not one bit. This is a wedge issue, and Republicans have the upper hand.
Truth. I mean, no Democrats outside California and maybe, just maybe, some of them in the Senate pay any attention to Feinstein, but she’s some all-powerful, boogeyman monster to the NRA and its supporters. I don’t get it. She could be a Jack Kennedy but she’s definitely no LBJ.
Study: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years
And here’s a link to the report itself.
Not only that, but he’s comparing his personal view with some vague aggregated viewpoint held by the “other”, as if the gun-owning population were indeed in lockstep with his own views. Yet quite a lot of them would view the “licensing and registration” position he holds (as, incidentally, do I) as an utterly unacceptable prelude to mass confiscation of all privately-held weaponry. He may think he’s on their side of the fence, but a lot of them would think he’s on ours.
Whoopsie:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/2-year-old-fatally-shoots-himself-in-texas?ref=fpblg
Hey, shit happens.
Haven’t you heard? Gun violence has dropped dramatically in the past decade. So that shit doesn’t even count.
Well, I don’t remember saying excactly how dismally your side would fail. I suspected that something would pass but I was not surprised that nothing did. I remember saying that you could have had universal background checks back in January if you denounced Feinstein’s ill fated obsession with an AWB but you soon found yourself struggling for an extremely watered down version of a “universal background check”
Its just my opinion but the early attempts at an AWB confirmed your true intentions (at least in the minds of a lot of gun owners who were starting to open up to the notion of some limited measures in the wake of Newtown).
In what way?
Do you read what you write?
I think you should be more upset at Feinstein than I am.
I’ve laid out my thinking before but let me do so again in case you weren’t here the last 4 times I did it. I am not the first person to suggest that licensing and rgistration would be a good idea. LBJ proposed it after RFK and MLK were assassinated within weeks of each other. But the gun grabbers did not think that L&R was ambitious enough and considering the sentiment in the nation, they thought they should shoot for the moon. So a senator from Maryland proposed a wide reaching gun ban and this hardened opposition to gun control generally and all they ended up with was the gun control act of 1968 (still a great improvement but hardly as effective as L&R). LBJ cursed the NRA for defeating his proposals but everyone knew that the senator from Maryland had overplayed LBJ’s hand for him.
I think Feinstein overplayed Obama’s hand for him. If Obama had just gone after universal background checks from the very beginning (and ignored calls for an AWB), he would have gotten it. I bet if we took a poll of the pro-gun on this board, most would agree that it would at least have been much more likely without a push for an AWB.
This has all happened before and unless the anti-gun folks learn their lesson, they will continue to make them and get much less progress than they could otherwise achieve.
If that’s all your side said then I wouldn’t call that an attempt to vilify the objects themselves but placed in the context of a recent push for an AWB and all the nonsense surrounding that, I think there was an attempt to vilify inanimate objects.
I don’t remember saying that I was. I thought Ai was responding to Eluc’ and I thought Eluc’ either posited his ignorance if not admitted it. I don’t claim to be an expert on guns. I think I know more about guns and gun issues than other liberals (I still consider myself a liberal even though I think the 2nd amendment deserves to be respected).
So tell me, what have I informed myself that is wrong?
I’m talking about the folks who supported an AWB.
I don’t think she was alone on this. She had the support of the President, the Vice president and several prominent senators; meanwhile noone on the gun control side of the fence denounced her as going too far.
I don’t consider this a conservative/liberal issue (it has become one but it wasn’t always this way). I am pro-gun rights (or at least I consider myself to be pro-gun rights) and I am open to some gun control but I can understand how positions on my side were hardened when the first instinct after Newtown was to ban guns.
I know its just anecdotal but the gun nuts I know weren’t just willing to have some gun regulation, they were resigned to to. After the NRA response to Newtown, they figured they had lost the debate and were pretty much resigned to at least universal background checks but when the AWB was proposed, it changed things.
I disagree. I think if the Democrats had learned the lessons of history and just gone after more effective more reachable goals than an AWB, the Manchin Toomey Amendment would look like a very pro-gun compromise.
Neither side entirely likes what I have to propose but based on responses to gun grabbers and gun nuts: Would you take this grand bargain on guns? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board I think you may be right. The gun grabbers find more to like about my position than the gun nuts but here in the pit its the gun grabbers that spend their time insulting me and hurling invectives.
Why is that? I suspect its because the gun nuts have the facts on their side and don’t need insults to buttress their arguments but I am open to other theories.
DA, you’re rolling like a pig in shit in the way that you’re still engaging in post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.
Do you not know what that term means, or why it is a fallacy?
By the way, it’s an pain in the ass when you include a dozen quotes in your posts. In order to respond, I have to cut out a bunch of shit, and editing text on my Razr is for shit.
Shorter version: “Heheheh … Feinstein’s *stoopid *… heheheh”
You guys make a compelling argument, if your objective is to convince those who already believe as you do. Well, here’s to hoping that new AWB makes a difference… Oh wait maybe it was a universal background check… no, that wasn’t it, maybe it was just a background check at gun shows… no that wasn’t it either.. oh yeah you got nothing and you only have yourselves to blame.
Does this mean that you don’t know what post hoc ergo propter hoc means and why it’s wrong for you to keep using it in regards to the failure of the universal background check bill?
I’m surprised, because you were about to shit yourself with righteous indignation at the thought that the CDC might have engaged in something similar.
DA if your political opposition is as ham-fisted and dull witted as you make them out to be, you got nothing to worry about. Except your allies, of course.
A serious question for those proponents of gun registration. How do you believe that registering guns will help prevent any of the problems that we are presently experience? I really would like to know your thoughts because all that I’ve heard so far (from other sources, not here) is that “We’ve got to try something” or “If you have to register a car, you should have to register a gun”. Neither of these arguments makes much sense to me.
Work backwards from the felon or underage gang member who buys a gun. Where did he get it from? It was either someone who knew he was a felon/underage gang member (both currently illegal, as far as I know), or from some less-savory character who sold a gun no-questions-asked. How did that person get the gun? Second hand, most likely, from a gun show or a private seller he met through either means (internet, classifies, knew a guy who knew a guy). How did that person get the gun? Probably from an entirely legitimate purchase from a federally licensed dealer.
Unfortunately, only one of those transactions requires a background check. However, if every transaction had to go through a licensed dealer, and therefore every transaction had a background check, then Original Buyer could sell his gun to Secondary Buyer, but there’d be a record of it. If Secondary Buyer then sold it to a felon/underage gang member without going through a dealer, then if/when that gun turned up as having been used in a crime, Secondary Buyer would be on the hook for a felony himself. So Secondary Buyer has a much greater chance of getting caught than under the current system, where he can only get caught if a) someone rats him out (and that only works if he knowingly sold to a felon), or b) he gets caught in a sting (which only works if he knowingly sold to a felon). No more of this “He said he was clean” horseshit.
Since Secondary Buyer is more likely to get caught under this new system, he’s less likely to sell at all. That’s a win. But couldn’t he just sell anyway and claim it was stolen? Sure, but that only works for so long, and it only works as long as the criminal doesn’t testify otherwise. Either way, it gives the police a fighting chance at figuring out specifically where criminals are getting their guns.
The Universal Background Check bill that was just shot down didn’t really go far enough, because with no record of the transfer, Secondary Buyer can just lie and say, “Yeah, we went over to that gun store and did a background check. Dude came out clean.” So we need to record who sold, who bought, when it happened, and what serial numbers were involved. And that’s essentially registration. Licensing goes along with that just as a way to uniquely identify everyone involved in the transaction.
For additional info, read some of Damuri Ajashi’s responses to his thread here. As misguided as he is on politics, he’s given the issue a lot of thought and has come up with a reasonably thorough solution.
That certainly makes a compelling case for universal background checks (which I would support) but that isn’t at all what I think of when I hear the phrase “gun registration”. I have always assumed that gun registration was a system where existing gun owners would report the make of their current guns and future gun purchases to the government. IMHO, universal background checks and eliminating private transfer of guns is much more than registration. Is this the accepted usage of the phrase?
Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out.
Background checks do not account for people who subsequently become ineligible to own firearms. Say you pass .a background check and purchase a firearm. Then you have your onset of schizophrenia. Nobody knows that you have a firearm you should no longer own. Or after you get your gun, you later get convicted of violently assaulting someone.
Without a registry, forfeiting weapons already possessed would be voluntary.