Alright, let's go ahead and talk about Obama's gun control proposals

[Gravekeeper]

Sticks increase crime by making criminals of those that owned something that was previously legal suddenly illegal such as in NY where the definition of so-called High Capacity magazines was changed.

You do realize if that's the explanation it makes the original point incredibly stupid right? It turns it into a totally pointless statement.

The recently defeated senate bill regarding background checks was effectively a null bill for the most part but appeared to criminalize something as simple as lending a friend a shotgun to hunt with or shoot skeet.

It was actually fairly well written and largely free of partisan dickface amendments.

Maybe you guys google-fu is better than mine but I can't tie down the source of this "90%" in favor of expanded background checks and the questions behind it. I'd also like the source for the the 70% of NRA members that have a similar opinion. Thanks.

The majority favour expanded background checks.

As for the NRA, it use to support expanded background checks after Columbine, but recently flip flopped its position.

However, leadership aside, the majority of NRA members support background checks.

[Hyena Dandy]

The recently defeated senate bill regarding background checks was effectively a null bill for the most part but appeared to criminalize something as simple as lending a friend a shotgun to hunt with or shoot skeet.

According to whom?

That's a claim about the bill that I've heard, but I certainly did not interpret it, when I saw it, in a way that would be like that. Perhaps you can give me a source on that, and I can try to track down where they found it?

As best as I could see, the bill only required background checks in advertised sales. Perhaps that could be interpreted to include loans, but even then, that wouldn't have been advertised. Unless you put out a sign, saying "I will lend out shotguns to anyone who wants to go shooting" and your friend said "Hey, I'd like that!"

But otherwise... Not really.

Still, I will admit I could be wrong. Could I see your source?

[Gravekeeper]

According to whom?

That's a claim about the bill that I've heard, but I certainly did not interpret it, when I saw it, in a way that would be like that. Perhaps you can give me a source on that, and I can try to track down where they found it?

I'm assuming some NRA site. The NRA launched a big half million dollar campaign and lied their ass off about the bill prior to the vote. The bill had the majority support of Americans, the majority support of NRA members and the majority support in the senate, it just didn't have a big enough majority to overcome the GOP filibuster.

The bill has an exception for friends and family even in regards to sales. You can give/sell/loan whatever you want to your friends, family, children, parents, grandparents, whatever. So the claim is total bullshit. The bill also outlawed any type of gun registry. So that bogyman claim is also complete bullshit.

Basically, everything the NRA and right wing talking heads have said about it was total bullshit to try and rile up the base. It also didn't work according to the poll numbers. Thats why everyone was pissed. This bill had majority support on every level but still got filibustered by the GOP.

A lot of them are going to regret it come election time. Some of them already have with their poll numbers dropping like rocks in their home districts.

[Andara Bledin]

Without at least common sense gun legislation the Bad Guys(tm) will also have a gun and nothing has changed except an increase risk of someone being hurt or killed.

Except that even with all the legislation in the world, the Bad Guys(tm) are still going to have guns. There are too many out there, our borders are too large to keep them out, and criminals don't give a rat's ass about the laws, or they wouldn't be criminals in the first place.

Then again, there's the whole inability to agree on what, precisely, is "common sense" versus "totalitarian overreaching."

[Gravekeeper]

Except that even with all the legislation in the world, the Bad Guys(tm) are still going to have guns. There are too many out there, our borders are too large to keep them out, and criminals don't give a rat's ass about the laws, or they wouldn't be criminals in the first place.

That is a tired and flawed argument. It's also completely untrue. Gun smuggling largely occurs FROM the US. Not too it. Because its very difficult to obtain a gun in Canada or Mexico. Both have stricter gun control than the US. The flow is coming out of your country because of its weak gun control legislation. Not going into it.

That argument also falls on its face completely when you compare the US to Canada. Longest undefended border in the world, yet somehow we're not completely overrun with evil criminal guns. Do our criminals care more about the law than yours? Of course not. Its just harder to get a gun here because our gun control laws are more effective.

Its really really difficult to get shot in Canada. -.-

[Tanasi]

According to whom?

That's a claim about the bill that I've heard, but I certainly did not interpret it, when I saw it, in a way that would be like that. Perhaps you can give me a source on that, and I can try to track down where they found it?

As best as I could see, the bill only required background checks in advertised sales. Perhaps that could be interpreted to include loans, but even then, that wouldn't have been advertised. Unless you put out a sign, saying "I will lend out shotguns to anyone who wants to go shooting" and your friend said "Hey, I'd like that!"

But otherwise... Not really.

Still, I will admit I could be wrong. Could I see your source?

According to me. I read the bill but I didn't do the math to "strike this and add this parts." I still say the loaning area is murky, besides who advertises to loan guns??? The only thing I can think off that comes close is private ranges that rent various firearms to shooters for use only in that range. But as far as "Hey this is Dangerous Dan and do I have a variety of firearms for you. Just come on down and select the perfect Easter Egg hunting gun for you. We have Ruger 10/22 for the little ones all the way to the GE Mini-guns for real enthusiastic. No money needed we're just loaning them out, you supply you own ammo (that we have on sale.) However since this an advertised loan you'll $10 for the back-ground check. Don't forget Dangerous Dan's motto 'the only good Easter Egg is a splattered one'."
I don't know anyone that would just loan a gun to someone that they didn't know. I don't make it a habit to loan guns to people I do know, I figure let they buy their own, this is my play-pretty, mine, mine, mine!!! To tell the truth I'm leery about lending guns to my kids, I'd much rather buy them one so they'll leave mine alone. That's how my the 13yo daughter got her very own pepto-pink AR-15 and Glock 19.

[Tanasi]

The majority favour expanded background checks.

As for the NRA, it use to support expanded background checks after Columbine, but recently flip flopped its position.

However, leadership aside, the majority of NRA members support background checks.

I'm going to dismiss the CBS/CNN/Wash Post poles as being biased at best and outright lies at worst. Those organizations have an agenda therefore no credibility. Quinnipiac University I don't know, I'm not familiar with that school. I'll lend it some credence.
NRA backed the current BGC in 1994 with the hope that it would help. Since then NRA has changed it's mind based upon the facts as the organization sees them. Does NRA not have the same right to change their mind (so to speak on the 'their'.)
Now the NRA pole. I wonder how many actual NRA members they talked to??? Very few I'd say. Speaking only for myself when someone calls up and starts asking questions about what I do and do not own, I say no thank you and hang up. I don't admit that I'm a member of the NRA nor do I advertise that I even own guns. No thanks that's just asking to get your house robbed.
The study said they talked to someone in the house-hold where at least one person was a NRA member. Heck that could have been anyone from a visitor to the actual member. I don't think many NRA members would answer the question.
The first polelcommissioned by CBS/NY Time (whole lot of credibility there) so how many of the 1100 poled were NRA members??? Doesn't say. What area of the country was this conducted??? Doesn't say, you'll get a much bigger difference from just rural and urban and don't forget geographic differences. Sounds to me like the pole was urban damnyankee heavy.
The second poll was regarding "all sales" at gun shows. While a lot of sales are made at gun shows the vast majority are not for the simple fact prices are higher at gun shows than at gun shops.

[Tanasi]

That is a tired and flawed argument. It's also completely untrue. Gun smuggling largely occurs FROM the US. Not too it. Because its very difficult to obtain a gun in Canada or Mexico. Both have stricter gun control than the US. The flow is coming out of your country because of its weak gun control legislation. Not going into it.

That argument also falls on its face completely when you compare the US to Canada. Longest undefended border in the world, yet somehow we're not completely overrun with evil criminal guns. Do our criminals care more about the law than yours? Of course not. Its just harder to get a gun here because our gun control laws are more effective.

Its really really difficult to get shot in Canada. -.-

I'm curious just exactly how do you know it's harder for criminals in Canada to get guns than here???

[Hyena Dandy]

I read the bill but I didn't do the math to "strike this and add this parts."

So you read the bill, but didn't include, in trying to interpret the bill, the amendments designed to solve the issue you brought up...

Do you know how laws work?

I still say the loaning area is murky, besides who advertises to loan guns??? The only thing I can think off that comes close is private ranges that rent various firearms to shooters for use only in that range. But as far as "Hey this is Dangerous Dan and do I have a variety of firearms for you. Just come on down and select the perfect Easter Egg hunting gun for you. We have Ruger 10/22 for the little ones all the way to the GE Mini-guns for real enthusiastic. No money needed we're just loaning them out, you supply you own ammo (that we have on sale.) However since this an advertised loan you'll $10 for the back-ground check. Don't forget Dangerous Dan's motto 'the only good Easter Egg is a splattered one'."

So, you're going to assume that the law says something it doesn't say, because you think what it actually says is unlikely.

Those organizations have an agenda therefore no credibility.

This is a very common mistake made in debates, so I understand how you could make it. But, the thing is, it's not "You have an agenda, I can't trust you." It has to be "You have an agenda, AND a history of outright lying to further that agenda."

If you can show me that CBS, CNN, and the Washington Post also tend to lie about things to further that agenda, then yes. You can dismiss the polls. Otherwise, that's just what the polls say.

As for your questions about the methodology...

A household does not actually include anyone who stops by. It does say"Living in." So unless the visitor is a long time resident (My family had a woman who 'visited' us for six months) then they wouldn't be considered part of the household.

However, that doesn't mean that that the person who was asked was an NRA member, so you could criticize the methodology there. It doesn't, however, mean that just anyone in the house at the moment can be the one surveyed.

[Gravekeeper]

According to me.

Well you are completely and utterly wrong. There is nothing. I repeat, nothing in the bill that interferes with gun loans. In fact, existing law already covers and makes exceptions for loaning guns. This bill does not change that in any way at all. If it did, it would have contravened existing law and caused a problem. But it doesn't.

The bill also explicitly states it will not interfere with sales, gifts, loans, etc between you and your friends, family, children, parents, grandparents, cousins, whatever the fark.

I'm going to dismiss the CBS/CNN/Wash Post poles as being biased at best and outright lies at worst.

Sheesh, and you're not? You're making up any paranoid excuse possible to refuse to accept anything that contradicts your personal reality.

Does NRA not have the same right to change their mind (so to speak on the 'their'.)

Nobody said they didn't. The contrast is between the NRA leadership and its membership.

Now the NRA pole. I wonder how many actual NRA members they talked to??? Very few I'd say. Speaking only for myself when someone calls up and starts asking questions about what I do and do not own, I say no thank you and hang up.

If you bothered to read the links you would know. Also, just because you don't answer your phone doesn't mean other people do. Phone polling continues until they get a large enough sample size. They don't just call 1000 people and give up when only 500 answer.

I don't admit that I'm a member of the NRA nor do I advertise that I even own guns. No thanks that's just asking to get your house robbed.

The Pew Research Center is not coming to rob your house. -.-

The study said they talked to someone in the house-hold where at least one person was a NRA member. Heck that could have been anyone from a visitor to the actual member.

No, it couldn't. That's not what member of the household means. Also, there's this magical thing called "margin of error" that takes discrepancies into account. The margin of error of these was 3%.

I don't think many NRA members would answer the question.

Obviously quite a few did. No organization is a uniform single entity.

What area of the country was this conducted??? Doesn't say, you'll get a much bigger difference from just rural and urban and don't forget geographic differences.

They're national polls. Also, 1 in 3 have a firearm in their home overall. Here's the split according to Pew.

I'm curious just exactly how do you know it's harder for criminals in Canada to get guns than here???

Are you serious? You can't work that one out? >.>

[Hyena Dandy]

The Pew Research Center is not coming to rob your house. -.-

Yes, but someone can call and SAY they're from the Pew Research Center, and if you don't have/check caller ID, then that can be something you're legitimately worried about. I don't think Tanasi's worries are entirely ungrounded, there. But the fact that s/he has those, doesn't mean that no-one in the NRA ever would answer that.

It's basically anecdotal evidence, but that doesn't make it a false statement, and that's a concern that Tanasi is free to have.

Edit: Also a valid concern IS "Who would answer this"?

That said, I think drawing the conclusion "I BET THIS WAS ALL URBAN PEOPLE! AND DAMN YANKEES!" From the fact that you wouldn't answer it... That seems false, to me. What also seems false is the idea that 'Because urban people and yankees answered the question, the poll is invalid."

If someone in New York City, and they are an NRA member, than that's no less valid than a person from rural Texas. There is no 'Real' NRA and then some 'fake' NRA composed of urban yankees. NRA membership is NRA membership.

[Andara Bledin]

Since Canada is often held up as what the US should hope to become, I thought I'd share this little article.

Note, the source is the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, so obviously they will have a pro-gun bias.

Ten Myths About Gun Control (for Canada)

I'm not at all surprised about the commentary that gun availability has no measurable correlation to violent crime. Pretty much every study or group of statistics arrives at this same conclusion. The measurable differences that the presence of guns have are in choice of target and lethality in cases of actual violence.

[Gravekeeper]

Yay, the site works again >.>

Since Canada is often held up as what the US should hope to become, I thought I'd share this little article.

Well, aside from the fact they give no sources whatsoever, I'm not sure where you're going with that? Half of those I weren't even aware were myths. The other half doesn't sound bad at all really. It coincides with some of my points already.

Its important to note that Canada is still largely wilderness. Hence the high rate of rifle and shotgun ownership. I wouldn't go too far north here without a rifle myself. I'd rather not get mauled and eaten. In city centers the ownership rate drops pretty sharply. There aren't many handguns in general either. Handguns are the biggest thing that people try to smuggle in from the US. Their street value in Canada is three times their retail price because of the difficulty of obtaining them according to the RCMP. Supply doesn't meet demand by any means.

The suicide thing is also a big factor of it. We have really high suicide rates in northern Canada in the rural middle of fuck all in the arctic type communities. Especially among the native peoples. For obvious reasons: Middle of no where with no hope of getting out.

Those same communities also skew up our rape, domestic violence, drug abuse, etc. Because its literally frontier conditions. These little towns up north typically have 1-2 RCMP officers if any at all and are only accessible by plane most the time.

The measurable differences that the presence of guns have are in choice of target and lethality in cases of actual violence.

Yes, I said that earlier.

[Nekojin]

That is a tired and flawed argument. It's also completely untrue. Gun smuggling largely occurs FROM the US. Not too it. Because its very difficult to obtain a gun in Canada or Mexico. Both have stricter gun control than the US. The flow is coming out of your country because of its weak gun control legislation. Not going into it.

That argument also falls on its face completely when you compare the US to Canada. Longest undefended border in the world, yet somehow we're not completely overrun with evil criminal guns. Do our criminals care more about the law than yours? Of course not. Its just harder to get a gun here because our gun control laws are more effective.

Its really really difficult to get shot in Canada. -.-

Your argument is extremely shallow. You should know better. The issue, like many, is complex, and changing one factor can and will have knock-on causes; assuming that changing one key data point will fix everything is really useless.

You're correct in assuming that the flow of guns largely comes out of the United States, but you're incorrect in assuming that it's solely because of weak gun control legislation. There are two other major factors (and numerous other, smaller factors) that impact this: Porous borders and significant production within the US. If you declared guns to be illegal, you'd be reducing the outward pressure (the US manufacture of guns), but doing nothing about the barriers. Presuming that other factors (such as the War on Some Drugs) remain the same, you'd still have a demand for guns, but a reduced internal supply; the porous borders would allow the flow to reverse direction, and suddenly the US would be an importer of illegal guns, not an exporter. Look at how successful we've been at stopping the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants. That's a great track record, right?

Here's a list of gun manufacturers around the world. Even assuming that all American producers suddenly closed their doors overnight and didn't relocate outside of the United States, there's still a hell of a lot of manufacturers outside of the US... and some significant percentage of those are already US companies with overseas production facilities. So, with a sudden lack of supply from within the US borders and a continued demand for the firearms (you don't really think that drug dealers are going to shrug and say, "Guess I don't need that gun after all," do you?), the flow will start going into the US.

And that's to say nothing of desktop 3D printing. Last year, it was big news when one guy developed a functional rifle receiver and put the plans out there on the internet (For those not savvy in gun terminology, the receiver is basically the one essential element to the gun). This year, another guy used his 3D printer to make a fully functional one-shot gun. A few years back, 3D printers that could use metal instead of plastic were introduced to the market, and while those are still prohibitively expensive, the price drops with each passing year. It'll only be a few years before someone is capable of easily making guns in the comfort of his living room, at the push of a button.

Prohibition in the US taught us many valuable lessons, quite a few of which the government seems intent on forgetting. But a few of them are: 1.) If a significant percentage of the public is interested in acquiring some inexpensive item, banning it won't stop them from getting it; 2.) Banning said inexpensive item empowers and enriches people who are willing to provide the banned item.

Banning guns won't have the desired effect (and is functionally impossible in the US at this point, anyway). I strongly believe that if you want to bring the US gun violence rates in line with other countries, the best step to take is ending the so-called War on Drugs; Legalize Marijuana (and tax it reasonably); and decriminalize other recreational drugs that have minimal negative effects, such as Peyote and LSD. Take away the financial power of the largest group of people who engage in gun violence, and the gun violence will go down.

Seems simple enough to me, anyway.

[Gravekeeper]

Your argument is extremely shallow. You should know better. The issue, like many, is complex, and changing one factor can and will have knock-on causes; assuming that changing one key data point will fix everything is really useless.

I should know better? Did you even read the sad argument I was responding too? Did I even suggest changing a single data point would magically fix everything? No, I didn't.

You're correct in assuming that the flow of guns largely comes out of the United States, but you're incorrect in assuming that it's solely because of weak gun control legislation.

You're incorrect in assuming that I was assuming it was solely because of weak gun control legislation. Even a brief glance back over the last couple pages of the thread would show I know there's more to it than that. Nevermind that I did not say it was the sole reason even there.

It is a huge factor though. The majority of weapons smuggled into Mexico are purchased legally then illegally sold or transferred before being smuggled over. What they do is have one member of the family without a criminal record buy the guns, then they move it through the family as a "gift" ( as that makes it exempt from control laws ) from person to person till there's no trail. Then they smuggle it over once its in the hands of the family member who could not have purchased it themselves legally.

Canada has no such exemptions for friends/family and Mexico only has one gun store in the entire country. Hence the majority of all weapons recovered from Mexican drug cartels are legally purchased US firearms.

There are two other major factors (and numerous other, smaller factors) that impact this: Porous borders and significant production within the US. If you declared guns to be illegal, you'd be reducing the outward pressure (the US manufacture of guns), but doing nothing about the barriers.

I never said declare them illegal and porous borders is a failure of enforcement.

Presuming that other factors (such as the War on Some Drugs) remain the same, you'd still have a demand for guns, but a reduced internal supply; the porous borders would allow the flow to reverse direction, and suddenly the US would be an importer of illegal guns, not an exporter.

If that played out you would simply end up buying your own guns back from Mexico for a while. But again, that is a failure of border enforcement. Smuggling guns in from overseas is a more difficult prospect than sneaking across the Canadian or Mexican borders. They would have to be smuggled into Canada/Mexico/Guatamala whatever. Then smuggled into the US by land or sea. The more difficult you make it, the less people have the resources to do it, and the more expensive the product becomes.

It's more difficult to obtain a supply from Canada or Mexico. It would not meet demand. Guns would, ironically, become unaffordable for the average dipshit thug. You can already see this in Canada. As I mentioned, the street value of a handgun in Canada is 3 times its retail price. Because its hard to get a handgun into Canada and sell it.

Look at how successful we've been at stopping the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants. That's a great track record, right?

Actually, your track record there has been improving in recent years. However, you're hindered by the fact the Mexican government literally hands out informative booklets on how to illegally sneak into the US. So its not solely a problem on your end. >.>

So, with a sudden lack of supply from within the US borders and a continued demand for the firearms (you don't really think that drug dealers are going to shrug and say, "Guess I don't need that gun after all," do you?), the flow will start going into the US.

No, but they aren't immune to economics ;p

And that's to say nothing of desktop 3D printing.

Yes, I saw that. That problem needs its own thread as its a rather worrisome one.

But a few of them are: 1.) If a significant percentage of the public is interested in acquiring some inexpensive item, banning it won't stop them from getting it; 2.) Banning said inexpensive item empowers and enriches people who are willing to provide the banned item.

Yes, but guns are not an inexpensive item and not one easily made in your own home. Not yet anyway. Give 3D printing another 5-10 years of technological development and things might get ugly.

Banning guns won't have the desired effect (and is functionally impossible in the US at this point, anyway).

Again, no one suggested banning guns. We were taking about common sense universal background checks.

I strongly believe that if you want to bring the US gun violence rates in line with other countries, the best step to take is ending the so-called War on Drugs; Legalize Marijuana (and tax it reasonably); and decriminalize other recreational drugs that have minimal negative effects, such as Peyote and LSD. Take away the financial power of the largest group of people who engage in gun violence, and the gun violence will go down.

I don't disagree with you there. Though I'm not sure I'd go as far as LSD/Peyote. But as I said earlier, guns are not a factor in crime rates. Only a factor in how many of said crimes will be committed with a gun. Crime is a socio-economic issue.