Gun regulations - what you should be supporting

[Joecooool]

1) Magazines that hold no more than ten bullets. There isn't a reason in the world you need more than that unless you want to go on a mass killing spree.

2) Background checks for every gun purchase - no exceptions. Close the gun show loop hole.

That is rational, wouldn't affect any of you in any way, and would be supported by more than 80% of the population. It would calm the debate down and everyone could go on there merry way.

But because the NRA is beholden to the gun manufacturers and their members eat every turd they shit, they won't support any restrictions.

The end result is a lot more restrictions are going to be passed.

Conservatives didn't do shit with health care and Obamacare became the law of the land. Same thing is about to happen with guns. Its like republicans are incapable of learning.

[Doug28450]

Why?

Neither of those address the issue.

[m and t's77]

Originally Posted by Doug28450

Why?

Neither of those address the issue.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

1) Magazines that hold no more than ten bullets. There isn't a reason in the world you need more than that unless you want to go on a mass killing spree.

2) Background checks for every gun purchase - no exceptions. Close the gun show loop hole.

That is rational, wouldn't affect any of you in any way, and would be supported by more than 80% of the population. It would calm the debate down and everyone could go on there merry way.

But because the NRA is beholden to the gun manufacturers and their members eat every turd they shit, they won't support any restrictions.

The end result is a lot more restrictions are going to be passed.

Conservatives didn't do shit with health care and Obamacare became the law of the land. Same thing is about to happen with guns. Its like republicans are incapable of learning.

I totally disagree.

What your proposals will do is create millions of new criminals, where there were none before.

"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Ayn Rand

What proposal #1 does is turn me and millions of other Americans into criminals. Not only does that violate the 2nd Amendment, it is an ex post facto law. We aren't supposed to have those.

What # 2 does is turn other folks into criminals, or at least suspected criminals. My ex-wife's dad gave her a pistol for protection, before we started dating. Your law forces her to prove that that transaction took place before your law was passed. Guilty until proven innocent. Millions of Americans own private party sale guns. Your law makes every one of them PROVE that they bought their gun BEFORE this new law took place.

Do you own a toaster? Can you prove you bought it before a certain date?

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by m and t's77

[VITE1]

And how will any of them reduce crime?

[Doug28450]

Originally Posted by VITE1

And how will any of them reduce crime?

They won't, but everyone will feel better and that is all that matters.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Doug28450

They won't, but everyone will feel better and that is all that matters.

Yet the left fails to recognize that the Crime rates have been going down for the last 20 years in America. And that study after study shows NO correlation between Crime rate and access to guns but DO show correlation between Welfare and crime rates.

But they have done NOTHING to solve the root cause problem or crime. Welfare.

Cowards, All of them.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by VITE1

Yet the left fails to recognize that the Crime rats have been going down for the last 20 years in America. And that study after study shows NO correlation between Crime rate and access to guns but DO show correlation between Welfare and crime rates.

But they have done NOTHING to solve the root cause problem or crime. Welfare.

Cowards, All of them.

END WELFARE and the drug problem dries up too.....

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

1) Magazines that hold no more than ten bullets. There isn't a reason in the world you need more than that unless you want to go on a mass killing spree.

2) Background checks for every gun purchase - no exceptions. Close the gun show loop hole.

That is rational, wouldn't affect any of you in any way, and would be supported by more than 80% of the population. It would calm the debate down and everyone could go on there merry way.

But because the NRA is beholden to the gun manufacturers and their members eat every turd they shit, they won't support any restrictions.

The end result is a lot more restrictions are going to be passed.

Conservatives didn't do shit with health care and Obamacare became the law of the land. Same thing is about to happen with guns. Its like republicans are incapable of learning.

"40% of Gun Sales Made by Private Sellers" is An Outright Lie | The Truth About GunsThe Truth About Guns

“40% of Gun Sales Made by Private Sellers” is An Outright Lie

Posted on March 26, 2013 by Nick Leghorn




Those who know me understand my deep and passionate hatred for the misuse of statistics. So when the President starts arguing for increased gun control based on numbers that wouldn’t be acceptable in a high school statistics course, I start throwing things at the flat screen. Thankfully, I also have a wonderful outlet called TTAG where I can outline exactly how full of crap that 40% figure that’s getting thrown around is . . .



One of the current focal points of the push for more gun control laws is that universal background checks. Ostensibly, it’s sold as a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn’t have them. But since mandatory background checks would be useless without a national gun registry, it makes me think that something else is afoot. Nevertheless, the argument that civilian disarmament proponents have latched onto is that 40% of all gun sales are currently completed without a background check. Even President Obama has used the figure.


Studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from [background checks]. (Jan. 16, 2013)


Studies? Really? Exactly which studies would those be? Turns out that this figure is based on a 1994 study by The Police Foundation that surveyed a whopping 251 people.

To give you how statistically bogus a sample size that small is, in order to be meaningful to 95% with a confidence interval of +/- 1, you would have needed to survey, at a minimum, 9,604 people at 1994′s U.S. population total. In this case, the confidence interval was more than +/- 6. That means the study wasn’t even approaching mere plausibility in terms of accuracy.

Let me make this even better. According to a recent analysis of the exact same study, the Washington Post concluded that the study actually indicates that private sales account for AT MOST 22% of sales. In 1994. So, even if we accept that the study is accurate (which it ain’t), the way in which it is being used in the media and by our own President is absolutely incorrect.

This is an abuse of statistics to a level that would make my high school math teacher want to chuck erasers at people.

The survey is so old that it can no longer be plausibly applied to the current situation, especially given that so many laws have been passed since this survey was completed that further restrict the ability for people to obtain a firearm without a background check.

Even setting aside that fact for a second, the results themselves are being misrepresented. The survey DOES NOT say that 40% of gun sales happen without a background check. It at most indicates 14 – 22% of sales are conducted in that manner. Of course, that’s +/- 6 percentage points due to the minuscule sample size.

This survey has nothing whatsoever to do with the current state of affairs in the United States. It’s an outdated, poorly designed study, one that would be laughed out of high school, and yet it it’s being held up as gospel in the gun control debate. It’s also indicative of just how far and how deep the gun control activists will go to find something — ANYTHING — that backs up their claim. And they have to resort to bogus number such as this because they know that results from all of the current, valid studies go against them.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Especially in the hands of politicians, and TV hosts who don’t like doing the leg work to check their facts

.

[6spdC6]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

1) Magazines that hold no more than ten bullets. There isn't a reason in the world you need more than that unless you want to go on a mass killing spree.

2) Background checks for every gun purchase - no exceptions. Close the gun show loop hole.

That is rational, wouldn't affect any of you in any way, and would be supported by more than 80% of the population. It would calm the debate down and everyone could go on there merry way.

But because the NRA is beholden to the gun manufacturers and their members eat every turd they shit, they won't support any restrictions.

The end result is a lot more restrictions are going to be passed.

Conservatives didn't do shit with health care and Obamacare became the law of the land. Same thing is about to happen with guns. Its like republicans are incapable of learning.

Our expert libby here show that guns and ammo is just another subject he knows nothing about.

O cool one just for your information the NRA is millions of honest taxpaying citizens, which is totally contrary to the major make up of the democraps party.

[FasterTraffic]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

1) Magazines that hold no more than ten bullets. There isn't a reason in the world you need more than that unless you want to go on a mass killing spree.

This is arbitrary and idiotic. I'm neither a Delta Force operative, nor do I play one on TV, but I change a pistol magazine in about two seconds.

Or, for someone who doesn't plan to make it out alive, just take another weapon. It's not like you're going to care about spending more money if you plan to die during your attack.

The only thing it really accomplishes is that law-abiding folks have to spend more time reloading and less time shooting.

[Stangkiller]

Ahh yes cause both of these solve major pressing issues in the Us. Far more important than balancing the budget and reducing the federal debt.

Oh wait a minute what were the problems these solve again?

Neither of these would have stopped or prevented any of the last mass shootings. Registering gun sales doesn't affect stolen or illegal guns, and mag thing that's just silly.

Phil you're still blaming inanimate objects for sick individuals, maybe it's time to take a look at the mental health in America. If you just want to reduce crime? Start reducing entitlements.

[Chris Fowler]

1) Arbitrary and ill-informed. Large magazines are already out there. Criminals will continue to use them. It only limits the law abiding citizen.

2) How do you do that without registration. You're punishing law abiding gun owners without actually solving any problem.

I do support background checks for commercial purchases and gun shows (just as it is today). The other thing I would support is a method for voluntary background checks for private sales. I would be willing to perform a background check in the event of a private sale to someone I do not know. I find it unreasonable and stupid to have to perform a background check on a member of my family or a close friend. But that background check must be fast and affordable.

The other thing I support is actually prosecuting people for lying on background checks. 1500+ cases in the last year of people falsifying background checks. Under 50 people actually charged with a crime because of "lack of resources."

What you should be supporting is the elimination of gun free zones. They are a proven failure and do nothing but provide target rich zones.

You should also be in support of stronger punishment for gun crimes, rather than chasing down someone on Facebook who posted a picture of their child safely holding a rifle.

[Blademaker]

And once again, shit stirring........

[FoleyZ06]

Baaa, the sheep need to go graze in the pasture...truly ignorant!

[Broken Wind]

Okay, so my memory isn't what it once was, but it's still better than most.

Aren't you the guy who said we have to compromise our principles on this issue or suffer the imposition of overbearing gun laws?

How's that assault weapons ban working for ya?

[73sbVert]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

1) Magazines that hold no more than ten bullets. There isn't a reason in the world you need more than that unless you want to go on a mass killing spree.

2) Background checks for every gun purchase - no exceptions. Close the gun show loop hole.

...

Umm, no, and no.

[Torqaholic]

The people of this country have already made preparations to defend themselves from the criminal scum destroying this nation. Our tools are going nowhere and we won't be signing onto any hit list.

[DJ_Critterus]

Given Joecoool's past threads and his insane stance on gun control, if he's supporting something AND preaching to us that we should also support it, you can guarandamtee that you should listen to none of his drivel and tell him to go **** off.