What is your definition of gun control

Hmm here I was thinking being a politician had to do with passing policies for the betterment of the nation. Not intentionally rejecting any policy because the President is a Dem or the Congress majority is the opposite side you root for.

I'm 32. Was a kid in the 80s and 90s but I remember the political landscape being different then compared to how it is now. If you were a Democrat, Republicans weren't mortal enemies. Likewise for Republicans towards Democrats. Now you're telling me if there's any policy proposed by the opposite party no matter what it is, you gotta reject it. Good to know.

 

A decent comparison of gun regulations and gun deaths by state. There is a pretty strong correlation between more regulations and less gun deaths.

edit spoilered for size

Spoiler

 

If you are flipping guns for profit it doesn't matter who buys the gun, it is illegal and always has been. Car analogy would be if I am your neighbor and you want to get rid of your old car. I am in the hobby of detailing cars plus I am a shade tree mechanic. I buy your car, replace some parts, clean it up and flip it would be illegal for a gun. Now I guess the ATF will go after people for this. How is this law enforceable? It isn't without a sting operation, or universal registration. I think the end result will be a few guys getting prosecuted for publicity.

 

The silver lining with this executive action is if someone mentions "gun show loophole", you can tell them that Obama fixed that. Then go buy/sell privately as usual.

 

If you are a Democrat, and the Republicans are trying to push far right wing policies down your throat, you'll resist. Same goes for Republicans.

The reason for this is because if you are a Democrat, you probably think the policies of the far right are bad for the country, if you are a Republican, you probably think the policies of the far left are bad for the country.

What past presidents have done when facing an opposition congress is that they have moderated their stances on issues in order to find middle ground....this president hasn't done that, he's just claimed that his views are already moderated and that Congress needs to see things his way or he'll do it without them. That's just not how it works.

 

What's funny though is that Obama has actually been the absolute best thing that ever happened to the gun industry. Their sales and profits are off the charts almost solely because of him and things he has done.

 

But in this shade-tree mechanic analogy, when you buy the car from your neighbor you'd have him sign the title over to you. And he might file with the courthouse that he has sold the car to make sure he isn't held responsible for anything done with that car after the sale date. Then the shade-tree mechanic spruces it up and sells it for a profit, and signs the title over to the buyer, again perhaps filing with the courthouse to make sure he is no longer liable for the car. Flipping cars without transferring title is also illegal. To really flip guns like one can flip cars or houses would assume a titling system. What you're advocating is something more like flipping bicycles or guitars -- that is, something completely unregulated. Why pretend at a system of background checks if you leave the back door open? The law is unenforceable, not because they are over-reaching, but because they are making concessions to gun-owners that creates a huge gray area about what is legal and what isn't.

 

I'm not advocating anything. I'm informing you that flipping guns for profit is and has been illegal without an FFL. You can't buy a gun with the intention of selling it. You completely missed the entire meaning if the post.

 

I voted disarm all, but for me that includes the authorities and I'm not sure that was meant to be part of "disarm all".

 

why would u use gun related deaths? why not murder rate or violent crimes ? a gun related death could be a moral killing. My understanding is the purpose of the gun laws being proposed is to reduced the number of murders/violent crimes (which has been going down for years).

Also, just out of morbid curiosity, is a suicide by gun considered a gun related death?

EDIT: Here is the data I think you meant to post robbie (at least according to this simple study)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/

turns out there is no correlation between gun laws and homicide rate.

 

This may be one of the greatest posts I've ever seen on this board in all the years I've been on this site.

The stats he quoted go against your position, so rather than counter with whatever stats back your position, you first claim that the poster surely didn't really mean to use the stats he used, and then put in your own stats claiming that he meant to use the stats that back up your position.

Hilarious. Not a solid argument or debate tactic, nor does it make any point, but it is funny.

 

The numbers used were flawed for several reasons including the fact that they were lumping suicides in there with homicides as if there is no difference. Suicides make up 2/3rds of the total gun deaths, the only reason you'd count them is to artificially inflate the numbers and attempt to support a false narrative.

Let's face it, there's not a lot honest about that tactic, but I understand that when you don't have anything to support your narrative then you have to make due with what you can spin.

You take the suicides out and focus on the other gun deaths and it paints a different picture.

 

Lol, you can't change your story. You yourself admitted previously that guns lead to greater violence once I dominated you in a debate, and doubled down to argue that you can't change the 2nd Amendment and take away people's rights.

Now it looks like you are back to pushing your false narrative upon uneducated folks like tallanvor. Exposed much?

 

LOL you dominating me in a debate? That's hilarious.

Where to these ridiculous delusions come from? Have you sought professional help? Are you medicated for it? If so, have you taken them?

 

I'm not sure why suicides should be taken out of the debate? Is it wrong to want to reduce the number of suicides?

If you rest your position on the fact that suicides are included, then I'm not sure how solid that position is.

 

Why would you include suicides? Is the idea that if not for guns those people would be alive? That's pretty stupid really.

The violent crime issue is the one that is relevant, but the problem is that the numbers are too small if you don't include suicides so that there's no way anyone will take you seriously so they get inflated with the suicide numbers. They then use those numbers fallaciously to suggest that it is "safer" in places with harsher gun laws.....of course if you drop the suicides, it says the exact opposite.

Also, when it comes to suicide, you might be able to reduce the effectiveness of those attempting to kill themselves by making it hard or impossible to get their hands on a gun, but you don't significantly affect the rate that people attempt suicide....actually suicide attempts go up when a gun is not used due to the failures using other methods. With suicide attempts, it often is "if at first you don't succeed, try again". Suicide really has no place in the discussion.

I get the debate tactic, but you aren't going to convince any informed people with that BS.

 

You probably don't know much about suicides, so it might be a surprise to you, but yes, that's exactly correct.