U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-23-2013, 06:51 AM
 
34,310 posts, read 18,592,757 times
Reputation: 7584

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
Indeed. What's your offense to that?



Citation for the numbers?
You mean Finn posted numbers without a link?

Who would have thunk it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:11 AM
 
Location: Florida
63,081 posts, read 34,359,223 times
Reputation: 10481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
Indeed. What's your offense to that?
No offense, I just disagree that they are no different.

Quote:
Citation for the numbers?
I added the links to the original post. It's funny that I agreed with you, and you demand links. LOL What was your number? Does it matter if there are 8 or 10? It does not matter to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:16 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 3,050,755 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
No offense, I just disagree that they are no different.
That's what I mean--where is your disagreement?

Quote:
I added the links to the original post. It's funny that I agreed with you, and you demand links. LOL What was your number? Does it matter if there are 8 or 10? It does not matter to me.
I request citations for any data, suspect or not, that I want to know more about. I do it to people I agree with as well as those I disagree with. Take no offense.

I'm curious about the situations revolving around the actual defensive use of firearms. Some just say "X student shot and killed" and so forth, not specifically saying "student, while at school X, shot and killed"

And I don't see the original citation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,492 posts, read 51,399,522 times
Reputation: 24613
So who was killed with what and why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:24 AM
 
Location: NC
6,032 posts, read 7,568,249 times
Reputation: 6351
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
So who was killed with what and why?
Apparently it was just a shootout between two thugs where someone was hit by crossfire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Florida
63,081 posts, read 34,359,223 times
Reputation: 10481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
That's what I mean--where is your disagreement?
You say College dorms are just like any regular apartment building, and I said I disagree. Period. Apartment buildings typically have families in them, kids, elderly, working parents etc, while the dorms are 90% young single and party happy people. It is what it is.

Quote:
I request citations for any data, suspect or not, that I want to know more about. I do it to people I agree with as well as those I disagree with. Take no offense.

I'm curious about the situations revolving around the actual defensive use of firearms. Some just say "X student shot and killed" and so forth, not specifically saying "student, while at school X, shot and killed"

And I don't see the original citation.
I added the link for the number of colleges in Utah which allow carry. You asked for the numbers, and the numbers are on that link. Now you ask for something else. If you wanted to know the link for the list of cases where students have defended themselves, you would have just googled one of the examples and find it. They are found in a pro-carry link called "concealed campus". Crime on College Campuses in the U.S.

Have a nice day.

Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 01-23-2013 at 07:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:29 AM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,376 posts, read 7,715,063 times
Reputation: 7281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinebar View Post
Why not gun registration? What are you hiding?
Gun registration is always the first step to gun confiscation. Always has been, always will be. If you do background checks there's no need for registration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
6,957 posts, read 7,786,272 times
Reputation: 5702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
I don't know any liberal gun owners who have problems with gun registries or background checks. It seems the opposition to that from what I've seen comes from the "gubmint be fascists!" crowd. I hope you aren't one of those. The federal government doesn't have a registry of firearms, and I've learned recently, the BATFE has no way of actually keeping track of gun sales. States might have individual laws trying to track that, but there isn't any national database.

Background checks are sensible because it can directly stop someone from legally purchasing a firearm in a store. The problem we run into is private sales. It will be hard to enforce a background check on every sale. Forcing individuals to sell their legally possessed firearms through an FFL (at a charge, of course) is an egregious violation of your rights. You'd be better off with forcing the individual who is purchasing to obtain a "right to purchase" document, which would allow the individual selling a firearm to affirm (to the best of his or her knowledge) that the purchasee has been cleared on a background check.

That document could be for a single purchase, a license (such as a CPL), or other. That way, it isn't the legal responsability of the private seller. There should be no legal recourse for the seller any more than there is for someone selling an automobile privately. Dealerships, in the business of selling cars, generally confirm that the purchasee has insurance, a license, etc. Private sellers have no such onus, and they shouldn't.

Of course, all this means nothing applied to rifles and shotguns, which make up such a small part of homicides each year. The vast majority of firearm homicides (something like seven or eight thousand) occur by handgun.

I know there have been several attempts to limit handgun possession, including purchase-permits. Curious to see how those worked out where enforced.
I don't fall into the "gubmint be fascists" crowd as you put it. What I do believe is that we should actively try to limit the interference of the government into our personal lives, especially when it comes to mandating how and when we can exercise our protected rights. On top of that, the government hasn't done anything in the last 25 years (roughly the amount of time I've been paying attention to politics) to show that they are trustworthy when it comes to safeguarding my personal information. If anything, they've proven how untrustworthy they are.

Is there a chance that a centralized database could lead to forced confiscations down the road? Yes. Is that a likely scenario? Not in the slightest. Then again, there isn't really that great a chance that I'll be assaulted when I leave my house, but most of the time I carry my firearm anyway.

You're correct that the government doesn't have a national database of sales. Nor do they need one. As long as the purchaser goes through a background check (currrently required when purchasing from a FFL dealer), there is no reason for the government to have any more involvement until and unless someone uses a firearm in an illegal manner.

I like your idea of a "right to purchase" document. I think that would be a solution that could satisfy both sides of the firearms debate, although I doubt that it would make a huge dent in the criminal trafficking of firearms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Texas
1,923 posts, read 2,342,023 times
Reputation: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
Gun registration is always the first step to gun confiscation. Always has been, always will be. If you do background checks there's no need for registration.
Oh come on now. I'm pretty sure the first thing the Govt. would do when planning to take all the guns away from citizens would be to relax gun laws, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 08:39 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 3,050,755 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
You say College dorms are just like any regular apartment building, and I said I disagree. Period. Apartment buildings typically have families in them, kids, elderly, working parents etc, while the dorms are 90% young single and party happy people. It is what it is.
That doesn't explain why you think an apartment complex or a dormitory is any more or less safe. Make an argument and support it.
Quote:
I added the link for the number of colleges in Utah which allow carry. You asked for the numbers, and the numbers are on that link. Now you ask for something else. If you wanted to know the link for the list of cases where students have defended themselves, you would have just googled one of the examples and find it. They are found in a pro-carry link called "concealed campus". Crime on College Campuses in the U.S.
Have a nice day.
Ah, didn't know they were in the original link about Utah's concealed carry. I presumed it was from a separate link--but I still am not seeing it. Where are you going for those stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
I don't fall into the "gubmint be fascists" crowd as you put it. What I do believe is that we should actively try to limit the interference of the government into our personal lives, especially when it comes to mandating how and when we can exercise our protected rights. On top of that, the government hasn't done anything in the last 25 years (roughly the amount of time I've been paying attention to politics) to show that they are trustworthy when it comes to safeguarding my personal information. If anything, they've proven how untrustworthy they are.
I agree, I think less government is better, but I understand where government is necessary. The private sector isn't any better at safe-guarding information as well. Considering there are central repositories of personal information (social security numbers, dates of births, names, addresses, home values, etc), all of which is accessible both in public and by government officials, some of who may not be scrupulous, doesn't lend any confidence to data security. That's an argument for an entirely different time.

Quote:
Is there a chance that a centralized database could lead to forced confiscations down the road? Yes. Is that a likely scenario? Not in the slightest. Then again, there isn't really that great a chance that I'll be assaulted when I leave my house, but most of the time I carry my firearm anyway.
Your post was preceded by this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
Gun registration is always the first step to gun confiscation. Always has been, always will be. If you do background checks there's no need for registration.
Like I said, "Gubmint are fascists" types. This isn't 1930's Germany.

Quote:
You're correct that the government doesn't have a national database of sales. Nor do they need one. As long as the purchaser goes through a background check (currrently required when purchasing from a FFL dealer), there is no reason for the government to have any more involvement until and unless someone uses a firearm in an illegal manner.
In terms of unsolved homicides, how much easier would it be to solve those crimes if police can find out where a firearm came from? While it is accurate that many firearms are not obtained through legal channels, many of them are. I'm not just talking about 'gun-show loopholse,' but unscrupulous dealers and strawman purchases as well. If you can look up where a firearm was last purchased, you can start investigating to whom it was sold to (and if that person sold it--so on and so forth). I don't think a registration will stop new crimes from being committed, but it could certainly aid in solving ones that have already been.

And, as I said, this isn't 1930's Germany. A national registration isn't going to lead to a mass of confiscation. This country would never allow it.

Quote:
I like your idea of a "right to purchase" document. I think that would be a solution that could satisfy both sides of the firearms debate, although I doubt that it would make a huge dent in the criminal trafficking of firearms.
It'd stop the gunshow loophole (which really isn't a loophole). A national database and an empowered BATFE could go a long way to shutting down illicit sources of sales.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top