I’ve noticed “progressive” ideas often eviscerate their adherents on the keen edge of logic. I think we have arrived at that point now with you on record as caring more about the collective than the individual when it comes to firearms. Let’s examine this evisceration in detail. So, you prefer more restrictions on firearms because you perceive they have a negative influence or effect on society. And now you have broached the subject of effects of alcohol. Here are a few interesting facts about alcohol and firearms and violence in general. 1). Forty percent of criminals incarcerated for violent crimes were under the influence of alcohol at the time they committed the crime for which they are incarcerated. Many had a BAC three times the legal limit when arrested. 2). Acute alcohol consumption makes an individual 4 to 6 times more likely to intentionally shoot themselves or commit suicide with a firearm. 3). Fifty-five percent of domestic abuse perpetrators were drinking prior to the assault. Men who are dependent on alcohol are 6 times more likely to abuse. 4). Women who are abused are 15 times more likely to be abusers of alcohol! 5). Twenty-five percent of accidental gun deaths involve alcohol. 6). Driving while intoxicated kills around 10,000 per year in the US 7). Annual total deaths from alcohol increased from 35,000 in 1999 to 72,558 in 2017. Now, we see alcohol is responsible for much more death and violence than firearms. Also, alcohol has no value for self defense or for acquiring food or predator control. Yet you are focused on restricting rights to firearms instead of alcohol that is orders of magnitude more destructive to society and individuals. Why? Now, to be clear, I have no desire to restrict your access to booze. I believe what you eat and drink is your business. Why do you wish to involve yourself in the business of others concerning firearms when they are so much less damaging to society and have legitimate benefits to society?
What is your interpretation of the cause of gun violence? I can't wait. It's been shown that people given a basic income spend it on their needs, not to party.....and the Republicans have done what? What are the unintended consequences of UBCs, actually enforcing straw purchase laws, longer sentences for gun theft and banning "ghost guns"? The demographic that women need to protect themselves against is men. Society tried prohibition and it actually saved more lives than it took, but the calculation by society, costs/benefits came down on the side of lifting prohibition. Society believes the deaths and the costs to society can be tolerated in the name getting one's drink on. On the other hand 88% to 94% of voters want UBCs.
I’m encouraged to see you asking the right questions now. That’s good. Kind of late in the game but better late than never! Violence has many causes, but let’s start out simple. Here are the major “causes” of (gun) violence. Many are interconnected by their association with upbringing/parenting so there will be repetition and overlap. 1). Genetics. Over forty genes have been identified that are involved in propensity to violence. The factors below can suppress or exacerbate genetic tendencies to violent behavior. 2). Healthy socialization at young ages. In other words learning how to resolve conflict with peers and authority figures nonviolently. As seen below this isn’t often learned in single parent households or in homes where drugs and alcohol are abused. Certainly not in homes with partner abuse. Bullying falls under this heading as well. 3).Fear and insecurity. Unstable home life is known to cause extreme insecurity in children. 4). Single parenthood. Single parents are more likely to be abusive to children than parents in two parent households. Single mothers are also prone to poverty which exacerbates abusive tendencies in women. 5). Drug and alcohol abuse. Substance abuse by parents is a factor as well as subsequent use by those children later in life. Drugs and alcohol reduce inhibitions making genetic predisposition more likely to be acted upon. 6). Addiction. Violent behavior often becomes addictive behavior because it triggers adrenaline. It’s now believed by many this is the link between video game and entertainment violence and real violence. Of course there are many other factors, but that’s a general overview. You will notice almost all of the points after 1) Genetics are linked to what we value in society. We want no fault divorce to make adults “happy”. We want our booze and drugs to make us feel “good”. We want to pursue pleasure at the expense of raising children that are well adjusted. We want entertainment that is riveting but not healthy. And all above points are uncomfortable for us to face. In fact, progressive ideals deny the existence of the above points. But violence will not cease until we address these points. Sure. That’s why more soda is purchased with EBT benefits than any other food. LOL. I suppose soda is a “need”? Oh, your “Republican” comments are wasted on me. I’m not a Republican and loath the party. Well, UBC as many propose would make felons out of those of us who loan and borrow firearms. We can’t be running off to an FFL 46 miles from home and paying $25-$100 to transfer the gun for a few hours of use. Why do you think we don’t prosecute straw purchases? It’s likely the same reason gangs are not cracked down on etc. The majority of straw purchasing is done by “protected classes”. If we prosecuted, the unintended consequences would be the appearance of racial animosity. The unintended consequences of longer sentences for gun theft is the fact violent offenders would have to be paroled sooner to make room for thieves. The unintended consequences to banning “ghost guns” would be to drive the industry underground. You can shut down legit businesses making 80% receivers etc. but it will have no effect on gun crime. Any felon can buy a $300 3D printer and make firearms perfectly suited to one time use in crimes and subsequent disposal. All you have accomplished is banning something used so little in criminal pursuits as to be statistically insignificant, hurt small businesses, and incentivized manufacturing of guns even less traceable. I’m sure there are hundreds of others but that’s a few. Really? You are aware lesbian women are more likely to be raped and abused by other women than heterosexual woman are to be taped or abused by men, right? Also, it’s not all men. You still haven’t done your research on the demographics committing the most gun violence, spousal/partner abuse, etc. have you? Do you know how many lives I could save if I was to force behaviors I choose on others? A lot more than prohibition I can guarantee you. So you admit getting buzzed or wasted has more value than saving a few lives now and then. So why are you so willing to mess up people’s lives who never hurt anyone with a firearm? Man I miss liberals! I’ll remind you again. If 88-94% of people wanted UBC’s we would already have them. You are being misled again I’m afraid.
Prohibition never worked. We have plenty of laws, why not just enforce them and stop trampling on the rights of the lawful?
I'm sorry you worked so hard on this. I thought you had special insights that would open my eyes. But no, just well known causes of which I could add a few (economic insecurity, untreated psych disease....) but the one pattern that exacerbates all of the above is poverty and the level of that violence is access to guns. You seem to have little respect for the poor or their decision making process. Are you sure you are not a Republican? So you seem to be against any measures that would keep guns out of illegal hands. Taking a private gun buyer to a gun dealer for a background check is too much trouble. How socially responsible. A few states have passed anti-straw purchase laws because the ATF is way understaffed and it is low on the list because it is difficult to prosecute, therefore poorly enforced. What is this "protected class" delusion? Since when has the police balked at arresting Blacks for breaking the law? And increasing the severity of gun theft charges would put more violent criminals on the street? Sounds more like fear mongering grasping at straws. "Ghost guns" are admittedly small potatoes but anything made illegal "drives it underground". The only reason for a firearm not to be traceable is an illicit reason. For homicides in which the victim to offender relationship could be identified, 93% of female victims were murdered by a male they knew. Doesn't make lesbos sound very dangerous. Society makes choices and costs/benefits are always subjective. We could save many lives if we made tobacco illegal or set the maximum speed limit at 30 mph. As I said around 90% of the voters want UBCs and what is stopping it are the Republicans under the gun lobby's thumb.
You will never understand violence until you understand poverty. And you have no idea what causes poverty. Many of the above factors are why poverty exists. Don’t worry about me “working hard”. I have a pretty good understanding of these subjects and am happy to educate, even if the primary student (you) is unwilling to learn. I post mostly for the benefit of third parties. Posters such as yourself are merely props to help demonstrate the absurdity of the positions I argue against. I’m quite sure I’m not a Republican. Are you a Republican? What makes you think I don’t respect poor people’s decision making progress? I’m a liberal—poor people are free to make any decisions for any reason they want. I couldn’t care less. But as a liberal I also believe others have the right not to be negatively affected by bad decisions made by poor (or any other income level) people. Of course I’m not against keeping guns away from prohibited persons. I’m against feel good policies that negatively affect law abiding but do nothing to stop crime. I would prosecute every straw buyer and dismantle the demographic supporting the straw purchase industry. If you don’t like my explanation for why this isn’t done, come up with a better explanation. You can’t. The ATF could have been staffed under Obama or any other administration or Congress with the power to do so. It’s never happened. Yet you blame Republicans. Bizarre. Im quite certain the ATF is understaffed to keep wait times for form 4’s and form 1’s long to discourage ownership of NFA items. You are welcome to provide evidence I’m wrong. Of course your argument is irrelevant because denied purchasers should be detained/arrested by state police at the point of sale. It isn’t the ATF’s job anyway. And the ATF is under the Justice Department so the attorney general has plenty of access to prosecutors. Also one could make a strong argument that if violent firearm crime should be stopped by the ATF perhaps investigating people avoiding cigarette tax is a bit of a waste of resources. It could be there is less “profit” in chasing illicit drug dealers that straw purchase firearms than it is to enforce taxation on booze and smokes. It’s not socially irresponsible to not want to pay $25-$100 to loan someone a tool—the idea is silly. You think such a law is going to keep one gang banger from loaning a heater to another banger? Really? How’s that working out? As I stated, it is the responsibility of state/local law to arrest at point of sale when there is a NICS denial or straw purchase reported by a retailer. Calling things delusional without providing a counter argument is appeal to the stone fallacy. Is that all you have? Again, if you can document a reason outside of what I’m offering go ahead. Also, how would locking up previously law abiding people for a newly created felony help with our crisis of facilities for incarceration? When have we ever taken gang activity seriously? Maybe if we ended the war on drugs there wouldn’t be a market for straw purchased and stolen firearms. Certainly not illicit. That’s like saying old dudes who purchase Viagra discretely are using it illicitly. There are many reasons besides criminal intent to desire to make your own firearm. And it’s already a felony to create such firearms for transfer purposes. They can only legally be created for personal use. It’s also a felony to transfer such firearms to prohibited persons. It’s also illegal to transfer any such firearm without first serializing it. It is also a felony for a prohibited person to manufacture an 80% into a functional firearm. Such firearms are legal and in high demand by law abiding citizens. Why? It’s an unintended consequence of people like you talking about banning and registering and limiting access. You have CREATED the industry by going after law abiding citizens instead of criminals. Well, if lesbians didn’t make up only 1.5% of the population your argument may make a little sense. LOL. And I’m opposed to all abuse, not just homicide. Yep, and my goal is to make sure we don’t make a bad societal choice when it comes to rights to firearms in this great country. Again, Republicans can’t stop 90% of voters from having UBC’s. If the people wanted UBC we would have it. As long as you keep blaming Republicans for this you will be disappointed. Of course I shouldn’t be giving you good advice on that score, but I’m more interested in the truth than getting “my way”. No politician has the balls to really do what they say they believe on firearm issues—Democrats or Republicans. They are all using it as a vote generating device—that’s it. I’ve often said when it’s politically advantageous for Republican politicians to go full anti-gun, most of them will. Just look at Rubio—he’ll take either position depending on how the wind blows or who his audience is. Hell, Trump violated the constitution to ban bump stocks.
Like background checks in their current form, they place an artificial precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to same. That's an "infringement". Shall not be infringed.
I don't think you in particular can tell me anything new about poverty, but your dismissive, demeaning attitude tells me a lot about you. You are hardly a modern liberal. I think what you are reaching for is "classical liberal" which is basically a libertarian. Just come out of the closet. What makes me think you don't respect poor people? Every example you used of the poor has been negative. You can quit pretending. You are for keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited people but won't lift a finger to help...sounds about right. Even though approximately 80% of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes are obtained from unlicensed sellers. Thank you for your service. Your explanation why few arrests for straw purchases was patently ridiculous as I pointed out (BTW the counter argument to the delusional statement was "when have police balked at arresting Blacks"... never) and I didn't blame Republicans. Yes bizzare....and then you go on in a disorganized way and I am starting to think why am I wasting my time on this series of not well thought out and increasingly trivial counter arguments? And I don't have an argument for that..... For instance only seven states have laws that prosecute the straw buyer and studies of crime gun recoveries in Chicago, New York City, and Boston—all cities in states with strong gun laws—show that as many as 87% of the firearms used in crime in these cities were trafficked from other states which often have weaker gun laws. And your argument against increased enforcement of straw purchases is "how would locking up previously law abiding people for a newly created felony help with our crisis of facilities for incarceration?" and some imaginary "protected class"? And who is stopping the passage of UBCs in Congress now? Jeez, sorry, but I'm out....
I’ve told you many new things about poverty. You are unable to admit people’s decisions can lead to poverty. You think all poverty is forced on people. I know from experience (as well as the empirical evidence I provided you) that poverty is often a result of choices made—not “the man” keeping you down. There is no such thing as a modern liberal. Why—because they have no liberal foundation—the foundation is authoritarian, not liberal. You’ve been sold a bill of goods. Again, I’ve lived half my life poor. I had some of the best times of my life when in abject poverty. I have many poor friends. We have been discussing crime which is negative, therefore references to the things that make people poor and violent (they are the same things) have been negative. There has been no reason or opportunity to expound on the positive aspects of being poor—of which there are many. The difference between you and I is you want to use being poor as a way to excuse bad behavior. I don’t want to excuse bad behavior, I prefer to change the societal metrics that make people poor and violent for the better. Of course your statistics are wrong. Only about 43-44% of firearms for criminal purposes are obtained from unlicensed sellers. DOJ statistics. Of course you can’t let little things like facts deter your crusade. Exactly how would my paying to transfer a firearm to a neighbor keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons? It’s already a felony to loan them a gun if they are prohibited. There is literally nothing I can do to keep guns away from criminals. How are you keeping guns away from criminals? Be specific on your methods and be specific about how many firearms you have kept out of criminal’s hands. Then we can all just mimic you and crime will cease forthwith. You are very good at presenting appeal to the stone fallacies. Not very good at making counter arguments. I specifically asked you to explain why we aren’t prosecuting straw purchase. The only thing you offered was shown to be impossible. Then you again resort to fallacies instead of addressing my argument. Sorry, your credibility is pretty much shot. You are parroting the Giifords now and their data is faulty. They list 7 states (California, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island) as having such laws. But just off the top of my head I know Colorado, Alabama, and Illinois also have such laws. I’m sure there are more, that’s just ones I happen to know. Your data is incorrect—again. Perhaps the alcohol again....or something else...maybe just trusting organizations that are dishonest...I don’t know. But arguments based on demonstrably false information don’t fly with me. You have confused UBI with straw purchases. I said making transfer of firearms without background checks would create felons of many who trade and borrow guns for practical purposes. Incarceration of these law abiding folks fills up prisons needed for murderers. I’m not sure at this point if you even understand the difference between straw purchases and UBI. Look, if 80+% of Americans wanted UBI, Republicans and (independents like me) would be calling Republican law makers and telling them to pass UBI. That isn’t happening my friend. In fact the OPPOSITE is happening. And if that isn’t happening, your statistic is manufactured somehow by a cleverly designed poll— or outright false like Gifford’s data on state law. Yes you have to be out. All you have left is verifiably false information and appeal to the stone fallacy. But your posts are much appreciated. They have been a great demonstration in how shallow the arguments for these laws are.
I said: Like background checks in their current form... That is, the background checks we currently have under federal law - their current form - to be distinguished from universal background check sought by the left. They both place an artificial precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to same - the both create a form of prior restraint, where the state, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, restrains the exercise of your right while it investigates the legality of your actions. That's an "infringement". Shall not be infringed.
With the kinds of guns and weapons they have, it is a better bet they are coming from elsewhere than the USA... we don't have a lot M2 .50 cal machine guns to sell, nor any of the other automatic (select fire) weapons readily available, nor do we have easy access to rocket launchers and hand grenades.
Nope, you wrote: "Like background checks in their current form, they place an artificial precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to same...an infringement." So what kind of background check is acceptable?
If you choose to not understand what I said, even after I explained it, I can't help you. Fact remains - background checks are an infringement, for the reasons stated. Shall not be infringed.
I'm sorry you do not like the implicatuions of "shall not be infringed" - but that in no way means you get to ignore it.
are you able to buy any clothing item you want? is there any federal law that restricts what you wear in your home or your community? is that because you were granted a right to wear what you want or is it because the federal government was never delegated any proper power to tell you that you cannot wear something?
