Both people are clearly showing their bias in the area of gun ownership, so like the author's recent editorial, this is pretty much an editorial. They seem concerned about the ways criminals get guns, yet our government doesnt seem interested in for example prosecution of felons who lie on background checks. Mike, you have said in your comments that you are fine with not trying to prosecute for this offense. How is this any different than trying to forge a check? Or perhaps lying on an application for public support? If they dont get the money or services, should they not be prosecuted?
I'm not opposed to prosecuting people who lie in the form. I just say that not doing so does not reflect on the efficacy of the background check system. It works.
Because the ex-con with the leather jacket thinks he's cool? Somehow, pasty white guys manage to get drugs. The dealers have to worry that those white guys will turn them in if they're caught.
But O'Donnell points out that the shooter in Tucson had no criminal record before the incident. That's another point. These wackos look no different from good citizens, so far as a background check is concerned.
We've told you that before. Your plan only goes after good citizens.
The good point is that unless you're a criminal with contacts in the underworld, you can't just go out there and buy a gun on the street. Adam Lanza couldn't have done it, Loughner either, or Holmes.
I addressed that in more detail in my comment below. Pasty little wonderbread kids from the burbs figure out how to buy pot all of the time. Why couldn't they figure out how to buy guns? Also, with the prevalence of pot smoking and other drug use, that means that a shitload of people already have at least one underworld contact who could get things for them or introduce them to people. I'd really love to hear you answer to this--especially to the more detailed analysis I made below.
Mikeb, I won't repeat the names of those three, since I refuse to honor them, but all three of them had no criminal record, and the wacko in Connecticut, to my knowledge, hadn't even been regarded as a problem by any mental health professional. Unless we accept a system in which people are denied the ability to buy a gun simply because the tribunal doesn't like the way they look, bad people will still be able to get guns legally.
That is the price of freedom. We have to put ourselves at risk to be able to make choices. Your goal is to take choice away from us.
So this establishes that established criminals would still be able to get guns EASILY like we have always been saying.
Of course, Lawrence tries to minimize that and emphasize the idea that a potential spree shooter or gun lobbyist wouldn't be able to buy an illegal gun because they have no experience dealing with the criminal world.
So, given this, why aren't they just going to buy the legit gun and pass the background check like Holmes did?
I'll also say that they oversimplified the dilemma quite a bit. The idea seems to be that most people are too incompetent to buy guns from criminals and would instead get jumped for their money.
Of course, the same risk is there when you try to buy some drugs, and yet millions of people get their fix of pot, coke, heroin, and various other illegal drugs all the time. It doesn't take much common sense to realize that if people can figure out the system and buy drugs with such ease, they can figure out how to get a gun.
Oh, yes, but black market guns are a special market that is rougher than the corner drug dealer. Yeah? Still, people can figure out how to work the system in their favor. Also, if we assume that criminals would have a harder time getting guns, as your side claims, that would mean that more of them would be trying to get them on the black market--prices would rise due to the influx, but the influx would also logically lead to a normalization of the market.
Lots of new buyers means that the business will go to the most successful seller with the reputation for holding up his end. If a drug dealer starts ripping off people coming to him for pot, he'll lose business--same for the gun dealer.
You're just playing hard to get, in your lengthy way. If you want to insist that potential young spree shooters can always get guns illegally as easily as they can get pot, fine. What can I say except to repeat that I question your sincerity. I think you, and the others for that matter, think you can say any fucking nonsense you want in arguing with me because you're fighting for your rights.
So you mean that buying illegally is only for usedguns? That's what most people say since you can buy used guns almost anywhere. Criminals get guns in their own ways and it's now always the same with normal people.
Both people are clearly showing their bias in the area of gun ownership, so like the author's recent editorial, this is pretty much an editorial.
ReplyDeleteThey seem concerned about the ways criminals get guns, yet our government doesnt seem interested in for example prosecution of felons who lie on background checks. Mike, you have said in your comments that you are fine with not trying to prosecute for this offense.
How is this any different than trying to forge a check? Or perhaps lying on an application for public support? If they dont get the money or services, should they not be prosecuted?
I'm not opposed to prosecuting people who lie in the form. I just say that not doing so does not reflect on the efficacy of the background check system. It works.
DeleteBecause the ex-con with the leather jacket thinks he's cool? Somehow, pasty white guys manage to get drugs. The dealers have to worry that those white guys will turn them in if they're caught.
ReplyDeleteBut O'Donnell points out that the shooter in Tucson had no criminal record before the incident. That's another point. These wackos look no different from good citizens, so far as a background check is concerned.
We've told you that before. Your plan only goes after good citizens.
You are incapable of admitting that your opponents have a good point, even when they do.
DeleteWhenever your side has a good point, I'll recognize it.
DeleteAnd what good point would that be? Was there some good point that I missed?
DeleteThe good point is that unless you're a criminal with contacts in the underworld, you can't just go out there and buy a gun on the street. Adam Lanza couldn't have done it, Loughner either, or Holmes.
DeleteI addressed that in more detail in my comment below. Pasty little wonderbread kids from the burbs figure out how to buy pot all of the time. Why couldn't they figure out how to buy guns? Also, with the prevalence of pot smoking and other drug use, that means that a shitload of people already have at least one underworld contact who could get things for them or introduce them to people. I'd really love to hear you answer to this--especially to the more detailed analysis I made below.
DeleteMikeb, I won't repeat the names of those three, since I refuse to honor them, but all three of them had no criminal record, and the wacko in Connecticut, to my knowledge, hadn't even been regarded as a problem by any mental health professional. Unless we accept a system in which people are denied the ability to buy a gun simply because the tribunal doesn't like the way they look, bad people will still be able to get guns legally.
DeleteThat is the price of freedom. We have to put ourselves at risk to be able to make choices. Your goal is to take choice away from us.
So this establishes that established criminals would still be able to get guns EASILY like we have always been saying.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Lawrence tries to minimize that and emphasize the idea that a potential spree shooter or gun lobbyist wouldn't be able to buy an illegal gun because they have no experience dealing with the criminal world.
So, given this, why aren't they just going to buy the legit gun and pass the background check like Holmes did?
I'll also say that they oversimplified the dilemma quite a bit. The idea seems to be that most people are too incompetent to buy guns from criminals and would instead get jumped for their money.
Of course, the same risk is there when you try to buy some drugs, and yet millions of people get their fix of pot, coke, heroin, and various other illegal drugs all the time. It doesn't take much common sense to realize that if people can figure out the system and buy drugs with such ease, they can figure out how to get a gun.
Oh, yes, but black market guns are a special market that is rougher than the corner drug dealer. Yeah? Still, people can figure out how to work the system in their favor. Also, if we assume that criminals would have a harder time getting guns, as your side claims, that would mean that more of them would be trying to get them on the black market--prices would rise due to the influx, but the influx would also logically lead to a normalization of the market.
Lots of new buyers means that the business will go to the most successful seller with the reputation for holding up his end. If a drug dealer starts ripping off people coming to him for pot, he'll lose business--same for the gun dealer.
Is this really so hard to piece together?
You're just playing hard to get, in your lengthy way. If you want to insist that potential young spree shooters can always get guns illegally as easily as they can get pot, fine. What can I say except to repeat that I question your sincerity. I think you, and the others for that matter, think you can say any fucking nonsense you want in arguing with me because you're fighting for your rights.
DeleteCarry on.
Ah, so rather than argue against me, you choose to insult me, call me a liar, and thus dismiss my argument.
DeleteWould that be the "Tennessean's a big fat poopy-head" defense?
So you mean that buying illegally is only for usedguns? That's what most people say since you can buy used guns almost anywhere. Criminals get guns in their own ways and it's now always the same with normal people.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I follow you, Michelle. What's your point?
Delete