Senate rejects expanded gun background checks

[El Karacho1647545492]

would you feel any responsibility if said friend killed anyone with said gun?

 

i'll add on to this by asking if you'd want some sort of protection in case you sold a firearm to someone who you didn't know was dishonorably discharged?

 

let's just say you sign a bill of sale with legal disclaimers; by doing that, all you've done is render a sale null, its still your gun then that has been involved in the crime.

 

I'm actually ignorant on that scenario, are there any past cases where that's been decided?

[Scotty2Hotty]

 

Guns are only designed to kill.

 

That's not 100% accurate. Just like all cars weren't designed for drag racing, Auto-X, 24 hours of LeMans, etc.....

[Spidey2721]

So if he took the keys from you and then ran down his girlfriend, you would not feel any responsibility?

 

Guns are only designed to kill. Nothing else. Cars, forks, knives, hammers, toasters, pipes, baseball bats, candlesticks, dumbells, feet, hands, etc. have other uses. They CAN be used to kill, but the primary use of those things is not to kill.

 

so your saying that i own guns only to kill??

[TTQ B4U]

Guns are only designed to kill. Nothing else. Cars, forks, knives, hammers, toasters, pipes, baseball bats, candlesticks, dumbells, feet, hands, etc. have other uses. They CAN be used to kill, but the primary use of those things is not to kill.

 

Guns are designed to launch a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory. HOW they are used is up to the person, not the device. I don't own any of my firearms with an intent to kill anyone. They can if used in such a manner, but that's a decision I make.

 

Cars are designed to propel forward as well....and again, HOW they are used is up to the user. I own mine to run errands but again, they can kill more people than my guns should I choose to use them for that.

[Orion]

Is it safe now for me to say, "I told ya so"?

[Diamonds]

so your saying that i own guns only to kill??

 

some guns were only designed to kill pigeons made out of clay......

[unfunnyryan]

Is it safe now for me to say, "I told ya so"?

 

remember when

 

LOL

 

$5 to everyone that post in this thread if any sort of gun control on the federal level is implemented

 

retards.

 

lol

[BigOxley]

That's not 100% accurate. Just like all cars weren't designed for drag racing, Auto-X, 24 hours of LeMans, etc.....

 

what were they designed to do then?

 

so your saying that i own guns only to kill??

 

You tell me.

 

Guns are designed to launch a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory. HOW they are used is up to the person, not the device. I don't own any of my firearms with an intent to kill anyone. They can if used in such a manner, but that's a decision I make.

 

Cars are designed to propel forward as well....and again, HOW they are used is up to the user. I own mine to run errands but again, they can kill more people than my guns should I choose to use them for that.

 

for serious?

[RedRocket1647545505]

Is it safe now for me to say, "I told ya so"?

 

Sure. I, too, felt that nothing would come of it. However, I feel a major reason why nothing did come of it is because the pro-gun side is very loud when it comes to their opposition of any further laws. Being vocal about it is what gets you what you want. Had everyone just quietly sat back and said, "Nothing will happen", I'm sure this would have passed.

[TTQ B4U]

for serious?

 

Yes. Your argument is meaningless. It's like saying the BluRay burner in my PC is for pirating movies or that the spring loaded knife in my garage is for stabbing people.

 

By your logic anyone here with a nitrous system installed is using it for street racing.

[RedRocket1647545505]

what were they designed to do then?

 

I've answered this same question on CR before, but am too lazy to dig up my post. In short, they are not designed to kill. They are designed as a force multiplier. It puts those who might not be able to overcome an adversary on their own on a level playing field (or sometimes on higher ground). "God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal."

 

If all I have to do is draw a gun to get you to stop doing whatever it is that you are doing, then it has done just exactly what it was supposed to do. If that does not work, and you continue, then I put a round or 6 in you. If that does not work, I continue until you stop. If you stop because you are dead, that is your own fault.

[Otis Nice]

would you feel any responsibility if said friend killed anyone with said gun?

 

Crossbows. Made for hunting. Easily could be used to kill. If you sold one and someone killed someone, since that is what crossbows are designed for by your terms, would YOU feel responsible?

 

What if you sell a gun to a guy who sells it to a guy who gives it to his cousin who sells is to a guy who kills a deer with it and someone steals it from that hunter and kills someone. Are you responsible?

 

Stop thinking with your potato.

 

what were they designed to do then?

 

Hunt and protect myself. I'm sure my .22LR bolt action could do some serious damage. It has a scope so you know I can hit shots past 500 yards no prob.

 

So if he took the keys from you and then ran down his girlfriend, you would not feel any responsibility?

 

Guns are only designed to kill. Nothing else. Cars, forks, knives, hammers, toasters, pipes, baseball bats, candlesticks, dumbells, feet, hands, etc. have other uses. They CAN be used to kill, but the primary use of those things is not to kill.

 

Why would you indulge in the automobile argument then discredit it? In doing so you discredit youself. Also:

 

Knives and hatchets.

Medievel bull crap.

 

I've answered this same question on CR before, but am too lazy to dig up my post. In short, they are not designed to kill. They are designed as a force multiplier. It puts those who might not be able to overcome an adversary on their own on a level playing field (or sometimes on higher ground). "God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal."

 

If all I have to do is draw a gun to get you to stop doing whatever it is that you are doing, then it has done just exactly what it was supposed to do. If that does not work, and you continue, then I put a round or 6 in you. If that does not work, I continue until you stop. If you stop because you are dead, that is your own fault.

 

Bingo.

 

I was attacked (approached aggressively if you will) last fall. No fault of my own. Guy was apparently ticked for crappy service at Wal*Marts auto center (his dumb fault for taking his car there) and found me randomly in a parking lot on the phone with a friend. I became his target. At 6'1" and 310 pounds and with my Krav training I feel apt enough to at least have a snowballs chance at defending myself. This dude was big though. Much bigger than I. Looked like a white trash Hulk. From a distance I yelled at him to stop approaching, yelled to an employee to call the LEOs, and he kept advancing. Quickly. All I had to do was reach to my hip and he stopped, yelled more obscenities, called me a pussy for "having to use a gun and not fighting like a man", got in his car, and took off.

 

That day my pistol served a purpose (and I never had to fully draw it). To preserve life or at least well being. I firmly believe that. Anyone can read this, scoff, and laugh it off. That's easy to do when reading online and not being able to verify the validity of what was said, but I know what happened that day. Glad I didn't have to test my strength (what little bit it may be) or my training. I'm super glad I was prepared.

[nurkvinny]

Guns are only designed to kill. Nothing else.

 

I would argue guns are designed to preserve life against those wishing to take it.

[Diamonds]

You all can get technical, philosophical, and specific all you want.

 

Guns were designed as a means to increase odds of survival:

Hunting for food (which then turned into sport as well as money making ... Ivory)

Defending one's self, family, land, state, or country (a means of survival against threats, tyranny, etc)

Disarming potential hostile situations, or increasing your odds inside a hostile situation

 

 

Who cares if they are designed to be killing devices? They are certainly capable of killing if that's your intention. Quit trying to skate that fact or church it up!!! Why do you go do target practice??? Because someday that ability to aim may come in handy with hunting or defense, or war!.... Or the Olympics?

 

Regardless, I bought a gun in case someone tries to hurt me or my family. I would never instigate or be the first to act. But, I'm a good shot with pre-planned strategies to act quick and level a bad situation. So yes, I own guns because I want to shoot targets and increase my willingness to pull/shoot someone that threatens my home or my family with the same power/force. Plain and fucking simple.

[2highpsi]

I thought about this a little more.

 

I know some people hate the car analogy. They say cars serve a different purpose, etc. Okay, I see where you are coming from.

 

I know most of you drink (atleast socially) so let use that.

 

Beer serves one purpose and one purpose only. To get people buzzed, drunk, fucked up, or whatever you want to call it. However when someone gets drunk and kills people in a wreck we don't talk about banning alcohol. We don't ask the guy at the drive thru if he feels bad for selling that case of beer. We blame the individual. We realize that they took something that requires a certain amount of responsibility, and used it in a manner that they knew was illegal and dangerous. Why don't we see firearms in the same light?

[wagner]

For curiosity's sake, what do you guys feel was wrong with the legislation?

 

I don't always agree with what you have to say, but I respect the fact you can see the bigger picture.

 

The legislation to me seemed flawed, because we already have laws on the books for background checks. I could see having checks at gunshows, that makes sense, but person to person sales just adds extra costs that really don't have an effect.

 

I would rather see some serious teeth added to the laws we have, and enforce those laws as they were set up.

 

The whole thing of dragging the Sandy Hook familes around to me was just beyond low, and frankly insulting.

 

Now that this is over can we please try to fix some of the real issues this country has, that the feds should be doing anway?

[87GT]

I've answered this same question on CR before, but am too lazy to dig up my post. In short, they are not designed to kill. They are designed as a force multiplier. It puts those who might not be able to overcome an adversary on their own on a level playing field (or sometimes on higher ground). "God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal."

 

If all I have to do is draw a gun to get you to stop doing whatever it is that you are doing, then it has done just exactly what it was supposed to do. If that does not work, and you continue, then I put a round or 6 in you. If that does not work, I continue until you stop. If you stop because you are dead, that is your own fault.

 

March 23, 2007

by Marko Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

 

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

 

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

 

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

 

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

 

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[LJ]

I could see having checks at gunshows, that makes sense, but person to person sales just adds extra costs that really don't have an effect.

 

 

My dad and I talked about this pretty in depth yesterday. We both agree that the guy walking around the gun show with a gun to sell is COMPLETELY different than the guy who has the same booth with 30 guns at every gun show. I think a big problem is that they need to crack down on dealers who are not following the laws to be actual dealers. Requiring everyone who gets a booth at a gun show to perform background checks would really crack down on these "dealers".

[Jewtoys]

Someone please explain the cons to a ignant soul such as myself...

 

I see no cons but I have a middle of the road look at the issue

[Drewhop]

Someone please explain the cons to a ignant soul such as myself...

 

I see no cons but I have a middle of the road look at the issue

 

Required background checks on all transfers of guns is the first step in a national gun registry.

 

The law originally had wording that even temporary transfer could be considered a felony.

 

If me and you were going to the range and you wanted to try out my gun. If I handed it too you that would be considered a felony because I did not do a background check on you before allowing you to use my weapon.

 

At some point I think the bill was amended which is what I think the Toomey republican had added to remove that.

[iwishiwascool]

I don't always agree with what you have to say, but I respect the fact you can see the bigger picture.

 

 

I don't have a dog in this fight, i live in alafuckingbama afterall. Every house has a gun or twelve here. I'm all for background checks at gun shows and increased mental health screening. The expectation for p2p background checks was pretty silly.

[iwishiwascool]

Required background checks on all transfers of guns is the first step in a national gun registry.

 

The law originally had wording that even temporary transfer could be considered a felony.

 

If me and you were going to the range and you wanted to try out my gun. If I handed it too you that would be considered a felony because I did not do a background check on you before allowing you to use my weapon.

 

At some point I think the bill was amended which is what I think the Toomey republican had added to remove that.

 

There was a provision specifically making illegal a national registry to kill the slippery slope argument you just made.

[wagner]

I don't have a dog in this fight, i live in alafuckingbama afterall. Every house has a gun or twelve here. I'm all for background checks at gun shows and increased mental health screening. The expectation for p2p background checks was pretty silly.

 

The biggest thing that bugs me is the mental health aspect of all this. Look at all these shootings and the one common factor besides the gun is the crazy people pulling the trigger.

 

It bothers me even more the fact the guy down in TX that went all edward stabby hands on a campus and that just gets swept to the side.

 

Again, there are bigger threats and issues that need addressed before you even put gun control on the table.

 

I am all for it, but I think this was shot down for so many different reasons, and it really outlines how broken our POS goverment is.

[87GT]

There was a provision specifically making illegal a national registry to kill the slippery slope argument you just made.

 

Can you link a source? I want to read it I am not saying you are incorrect.

[Geeesammy]

God damn it feels good to see Obama have his jimmies rustled up a bit.

 

The actions of Biden right before Obama spoke are hilarious as well. I'm assuming this is the video that was talked about in the first few posts.