U
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
^^Total shit post.
Disgustipated
LAWLZ
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Posts
- 25,596
^^^ total shit poster.
Sean
We'll see.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Posts
- 96,192
So, given Vettebigot's article, what percentage of gun transfers had background checks carried out?
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
I give up tell us.
of the 76,000 firearm purchases denied by the fed check system, only 44 were actually prosecuted. Gun crime prosecution is down 76% under this administration.
Join the NRA, you'll know that facts.
Sean
We'll see.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Posts
- 96,192
Thank you, you just emphatically proved my point.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
The only point you have is on your head, MORON. How many people have been killed by guns bought at gun shows?
Sean
We'll see.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Posts
- 96,192
How many potatoes were sold in Belgium last year?
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Not enough. The vast majority of people selling at gun shows these days are dealers. They do background checks.
Sean
We'll see.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Posts
- 96,192
Not enough. The vast majority of people selling at gun shows these days are dealers. They do background checks.
What percentage of gun trades in the US are between private individuals?
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
The NRA only tells you what they want you to hear.I give up tell us.
of the 76,000 firearm purchases denied by the fed check system, only 44 were actually prosecuted. Gun crime prosecution is down 76% under this administration.
Join the NRA, you'll know that facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmtOEI7sAAs
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
I give up tell us.
of the 76,000 firearm purchases denied by the fed check system, only 44 were actually prosecuted. Gun crime prosecution is down 76% under this administration.
Join the NRA, you'll know that facts.
What do you mean 'denied'?
U
unregistered
Guest
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
The truth about vette and koala being stupid.
So policing over 100,000 gun dealers in this country, with just a couple of thousand agents, who are also responsible for tobacco and alcohol may seem impossible, but here's the good news. 18 years ago, a professor analyzed ATF tracing data, and found that 57% of guns used in crimes — the illegal guns — could be traced back to just 1% of licensed gun dealers.
Leading the charge was Reagan. On the campaign trail, he'd bashed the ATF and vowed to dissolve it. Once in Washington, Reagan, with the NRA's backing, proposed folding the ATF into the Secret Service—the two branches of the Treasury most unlike all the others. ATF agents would help the Secret Service handle its beefed-up responsibilities of campaign years and expand its investigative powers. It would have been a death sentence for the bureau.
But then the NRA had had a change of heart. The organization's strategists came to worry that if gun law enforcement was handed to the Secret Service, one of the few federal agencies with a reputation for competence, gun owners might actually have something to fear. And, they feared, that if the agency did become part of the Secret Service, they'd lose an easy target.
Vette you still haven't answer my question: what's it like to be an old, racist piece of trash?
So policing over 100,000 gun dealers in this country, with just a couple of thousand agents, who are also responsible for tobacco and alcohol may seem impossible, but here's the good news. 18 years ago, a professor analyzed ATF tracing data, and found that 57% of guns used in crimes — the illegal guns — could be traced back to just 1% of licensed gun dealers.
Leading the charge was Reagan. On the campaign trail, he'd bashed the ATF and vowed to dissolve it. Once in Washington, Reagan, with the NRA's backing, proposed folding the ATF into the Secret Service—the two branches of the Treasury most unlike all the others. ATF agents would help the Secret Service handle its beefed-up responsibilities of campaign years and expand its investigative powers. It would have been a death sentence for the bureau.
But then the NRA had had a change of heart. The organization's strategists came to worry that if gun law enforcement was handed to the Secret Service, one of the few federal agencies with a reputation for competence, gun owners might actually have something to fear. And, they feared, that if the agency did become part of the Secret Service, they'd lose an easy target.
Vette you still haven't answer my question: what's it like to be an old, racist piece of trash?
CandiCame
Rocket Grunt
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Posts
- 26,765
OMG... look, I hunt. I enjoy guns. I have worked gun shows. And I hate to tell you guys this, but the guns that people buy aren't really being used to kill people. No one commits a murder with an assault rifle. The NRA is not trying to remove the ban on assault weapons and accessories because they believe it inhibits the militia thingy from the second amendment. It's because weapons manufacturers and the NRA have a longstanding relationship (This isn't a bad thing. The NRA not being connected to weapons manufactures would be like the MLP fanclubs not being connected to Hasbro). The vast majority of firearm deaths are from handguns. The vast majority of people buying guns from gunshows and the like are collectors. They don't want a silencer because it will make murdering easier. They want a silencer because it's an accessory that will complete a collection.
In this same vein, imagine that you're playing COD and you think, "I like this game. I will buy the figures from it." Now, if you're Halo, you thank your lucky stars that McFarlin will never have another Spawn, get his lazy ass to make 40,000 variants and figures and whatnot, and go on about your day. If you're COD you license actual gun dealers, use their guns in your game, and then link the player's x-box live account to said dealers. People buy those guns not because they want to shoot people. They put it in the case behind their COD figures.
People who aren't involved with firearms forget that the VAST majority of guns sold will never be fired. As such, it may be considered a waste of resources to track every single one. But that doesn't mean that I'm opposed to background checks. You want to make sure that the dangerous toy you're selling is to someone who isn't going to hurt themselves with it. You know how when you buy anything dangerous, like a power tool, the register will pop up prompting the cashier to ask for your license? It's similar to that.
In this same vein, imagine that you're playing COD and you think, "I like this game. I will buy the figures from it." Now, if you're Halo, you thank your lucky stars that McFarlin will never have another Spawn, get his lazy ass to make 40,000 variants and figures and whatnot, and go on about your day. If you're COD you license actual gun dealers, use their guns in your game, and then link the player's x-box live account to said dealers. People buy those guns not because they want to shoot people. They put it in the case behind their COD figures.
People who aren't involved with firearms forget that the VAST majority of guns sold will never be fired. As such, it may be considered a waste of resources to track every single one. But that doesn't mean that I'm opposed to background checks. You want to make sure that the dangerous toy you're selling is to someone who isn't going to hurt themselves with it. You know how when you buy anything dangerous, like a power tool, the register will pop up prompting the cashier to ask for your license? It's similar to that.
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
Here's some more truth.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) cherry picked data and misled the public about gun research in a Senate Judiciary hearing on Tuesday, painting a picture of America’s gun problem entirely at odds with reality. Cruz made two false arguments when questioning US Attorney Tim Heaphy — first, that gun regulations resulted in higher crime rates in American cities; second, that there was no empirical evidence that gun law reform would reduce crime:
CRUZ: San Antonio has 7 murders per 100,000 people. Austin has four murders per 100,00 people. El Paso has two murders per 100,000 people. That means Detroit, the murder rate is 24 times higher than it is in El Paso…None of those cities I discussed, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, are isolated islands. Indeed, in the entire state [of Texas] you can purchase firearms and what we see with the murder rates is that the murder rates are consistently lower. My question to you, is not your subjective beliefs, but are you aware of any empirical data — every one of us wants to reduce murder rates — my question to you is there any basis to say that stripping the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens would result in decreasing murder rates rather than increasing them which, unfortunately, is the pattern I think we’ve seen.
State level data contradicts Cruz’s assertion. The two states with the highest per capita murder rates in 2011, Louisiana and Mississippi, received F ratings from the pro-reform Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (the third highest, South Carolina, has a D-). Louisiana and Mississippi don’t require background checks on private sales, demand that firearm dealers acquire licenses in order to sell guns legally, or limit the number of guns any one person can purchase at once.
Moreover, there are many factors that go into total homicide rates beyond gun laws, like lead saturation or gang violence) in addition to gun laws. Indeed, a recent crime spike in Chicago (one of Cruz’s examples of places with firearm regulation and high rates of death) predated gun regulations, indicating that the cause of the recent increase in violence isn’t the result of a change in gun laws.
So the question isn’t simply whether we can point to cities or states with lax gun regulation that have higher gun murder rates than those that don’t; it’s whether stricter regulations in any given city would reduce that particular city’s homicide rate relative to its current baseline. That’s something that’s best tested by empirical evidence that takes into account confounding factors.
And this systematic evidence suggests that gun regulations save live and that there is no real proof for Cruz’s suggestion that more guns lead to less crime. Three papers that studied homicides by county found that, when you control for factors like poverty, counties with more guns have more gun deaths. Another study found that, at the state level, stronger gun regulations are reasonably well correlated with fewer gun deaths. And research comparing the United States to other countries found that America’s greater access to guns contributes to higher murder rates.
Vette you still haven't answer my question: what's it like to be an old, racist piece of trash?
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) cherry picked data and misled the public about gun research in a Senate Judiciary hearing on Tuesday, painting a picture of America’s gun problem entirely at odds with reality. Cruz made two false arguments when questioning US Attorney Tim Heaphy — first, that gun regulations resulted in higher crime rates in American cities; second, that there was no empirical evidence that gun law reform would reduce crime:
CRUZ: San Antonio has 7 murders per 100,000 people. Austin has four murders per 100,00 people. El Paso has two murders per 100,000 people. That means Detroit, the murder rate is 24 times higher than it is in El Paso…None of those cities I discussed, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, are isolated islands. Indeed, in the entire state [of Texas] you can purchase firearms and what we see with the murder rates is that the murder rates are consistently lower. My question to you, is not your subjective beliefs, but are you aware of any empirical data — every one of us wants to reduce murder rates — my question to you is there any basis to say that stripping the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens would result in decreasing murder rates rather than increasing them which, unfortunately, is the pattern I think we’ve seen.
State level data contradicts Cruz’s assertion. The two states with the highest per capita murder rates in 2011, Louisiana and Mississippi, received F ratings from the pro-reform Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (the third highest, South Carolina, has a D-). Louisiana and Mississippi don’t require background checks on private sales, demand that firearm dealers acquire licenses in order to sell guns legally, or limit the number of guns any one person can purchase at once.
Moreover, there are many factors that go into total homicide rates beyond gun laws, like lead saturation or gang violence) in addition to gun laws. Indeed, a recent crime spike in Chicago (one of Cruz’s examples of places with firearm regulation and high rates of death) predated gun regulations, indicating that the cause of the recent increase in violence isn’t the result of a change in gun laws.
So the question isn’t simply whether we can point to cities or states with lax gun regulation that have higher gun murder rates than those that don’t; it’s whether stricter regulations in any given city would reduce that particular city’s homicide rate relative to its current baseline. That’s something that’s best tested by empirical evidence that takes into account confounding factors.
And this systematic evidence suggests that gun regulations save live and that there is no real proof for Cruz’s suggestion that more guns lead to less crime. Three papers that studied homicides by county found that, when you control for factors like poverty, counties with more guns have more gun deaths. Another study found that, at the state level, stronger gun regulations are reasonably well correlated with fewer gun deaths. And research comparing the United States to other countries found that America’s greater access to guns contributes to higher murder rates.
Vette you still haven't answer my question: what's it like to be an old, racist piece of trash?
Any citizen of the USA who gives his arms to the gov't is a fool and doesn't deserve to be free. We have the right to bear arms so that the gov't will not have all the power. We are a nation of ones. Each of us empowered to stand alone and fight for our right to freedom. Unarmed we would be laughed and then killed. That is our history. Our gov't has always killed the enemy who got in its way. My gun helps me to keep that from happening to me.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Felons trying to buy guns. Not all denials are felons though.
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
What the hell? I don't think you have any clue about anything.
In the current debate over gun control, the pro-gun lobby has an ace card up its sleeve: We need weapons to prevent government tyranny, they say. These self-styled champions of liberty see guns as the ultimate insurance policy to protect the Constitution. The problem is that most of those making this argument also strongly support a massive U.S. military -- exactly the behemoth we must be armed against. It's the great gun gobbledygook.
Vette, I know you're a racist and old but do you ever wonder how the NRA (and their republitard cronies) keep managing to prevent actual stats on guns from be obtained?
Also vette, you still have no answered my question: what's it like to be an old, racist piece of trash?
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Someone tell her mags can be reloaded.
CO State Rep. Diana DeGette (D) "I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available." (April 2, 2013, Denver Post forum)
CO State Rep. Diana DeGette (D) "I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available." (April 2, 2013, Denver Post forum)
Similar threads
