BoatShoes;1434387 wrote:You are getting awfully specific here. I was just giving an example. My example is valid on the proposition that the public is often involved within private transactions for any number of reasons. I didn't say anything about gun registration or registration in general. We were talking about background checks.

If you are just talking about background checks, all of your examples are off. How many times ahve you gone to buy an age restricted item and the clerk looks at you and decides "yeah, you're 21" without id'ing you. Just like how on a private firearm sale you are supposed to check the age of the person you are selling it to. Then when you get to cars (which is your original example) the state is not involved in the actual sale. They are involved in the registration to drive it on their roads. I could sell as many cars I want to the 6 year old next door, and he can own them, but he cannot register it to drive on the public roads.

LJ;1434400 wrote:If you are just talking about background checks, all of your examples are off. How many times ahve you gone to buy an age restricted item and the clerk looks at you and decides "yeah, you're 21" without id'ing you. Just like how on a private firearm sale you are supposed to check the age of the person you are selling it to. Then when you get to cars (which is your original example) the state is not involved in the actual sale. They are involved in the registration to drive it on their roads. I could sell as many cars I want to the 6 year old next door, and he can own them, but he cannot register it to drive on the public roads.

You're really taking this into the weeds from my reply to TK41's general proposition. But that is why I've suggested that expanded liability makes sense within the realm of firearms...this is really an almost libertarian way...using the courts/torts system to remedy harms...in addition to the background check requirement is desirable.

Your argument is that sellers are simply negligent. They won't do a proper background check because that's just what people do...they sell beer to people when they shouldn't. If they could potentially be liable for not making a careful sale this behavior is discouraged....kind of like when bars change their behavior when they are busted for not id'ing an undercover cop.

And that the state is not involved in one particular sale of a chattel to a 6 year old does not defeat my ultimate point...that the public is involved and makes certain rules for private transactions all. of. the. time. In fact, the state can invalidate your contract with that 6 year old and refuse to enforce it because the public does not consider a 6 year old's words of contract enforceable.

" In fact, the state can invalidate your contract with that 6 year old and refuse to enforce it because the public does not consider a 6 year old's words of contract enforceable."

What the heck does that have to do with anything? We're talking about cash transactions that the government can't even begin to enforce any type of regulation. There isn't a contract. Someone gives someone money - the other delivers the product and that's that. Have you ever been to a rural area?

Manhattan Buckeye;1434471[COLOR=#333333 wrote:Have you ever been to a rural area?[/COLOR]

A big part of the problem ........ arrogant urban elites dictating policy is getting a tad offensive.

If Boatshoes were consistent in his position, registering cars would necessarily mean that virtually no crimes are committed using a motor vehicle.

BoatShoes;1434353 wrote:saving lives really matters more to most liberals than gun control per se.

When private individuals kill more people than the government does, then you can give me this nonsense. We would save many more lives disarming the government than the people.

queencitybuckeye;1434474 wrote:If Boatshoes were consistent in his position, registering cars would necessarily mean that virtually no crimes are committed using a motor vehicle.

Sigh :rolleyes: This is not even close to correct. My position can be reduced to the proposition that persons with criminal intent will break laws they think they can get away with. People regularly drive faster than the speed limit because they can get away with it. By and large this doesn't cause hardcore societal problems that cause grave concern to a lot of people. A lot of people are concerned about gun deaths and consider it a problem even if they by and large aren't a huge part of our society. Taking steps to attempt to make it harder for persons with apparent criminal intent or a history of criminal intent to get away with obtaining fire arms is justifiable. I never even went so far as to say that better background checks would essentially eliminate gun crime. And so on and so forth...

I made one particularly claim about the effects of the NFA (which is a total ban) and really never expanded those prospects to background checks or registration. In fact, if I used the analysis of the NFA and applied it to cars....if the government banned cars...placed a huge tax on buying cars and banned their manufacture....then it might be a lot harder to commit crimes with cars and get away with it....

Jeez.

BoatShoes;1434489 wrote: I made one particularly claim about the effects of the NFA (which is a total ban) and really never expanded those prospects to background checks or registration.

And was proven conclusively wrong on the facts. But instead of just admitting that you lost a round, you'll spend thousands of words of wasted bandwidth explaining what the meaning of is is.

You made a statement.

It was proven wrong.

Man up and admit it.

Cleveland Buck;1434484 wrote:When private individuals kill more people than the government does, then you can give me this nonsense. We would save many more lives disarming the government than the people.

See...that's the thing with libertarians...you guys have such a boner about coercion by actions or coercion placed by popularly elected actors serving a nation-state and yet you seem to neglect all the horrific coercion on the part of unpopularly elected conquerors in the centuries prior to the nation state.

Libertarians have no answer to the Tamerlane's of the world. Not tamerlane from Boston...but Timur the Lame the Central Asian Warlord Conqueror. When would be libertarian/freedom seekers sought uprising or liberty or a change of guard under his rule they were met with terrible vengeance the likes of which occur way less regularly in modern popularly elected nation states.

From "The Mongol Empire"....this is what happens to the Freedom-Desiring Cleveland Bucks under Tamerlane's;

At the news of the [up]rising, [Tamerlane] stayed his march into the mountains, and took a terrible vengeance...he showed himself to be a "hurricane of annihilation"...[H]e commanded cruelty and devastation such as made people shudder even in those cruel days...When he stormed the rebellious city of Sabzevar...he had 2,000 persons walled up alive, as a tower of horror "for a warning for all who should dare to revolt and as an indication of Tamerlane's vengeance"...The sword of the executioner made an end of the dynasty of Herat; the towns of the Sserbedars became heaps of ruin...The mountain cities, which defended themselves valiantly, were crowned with pyramids of skulls; and in the capital city...the inhabitants were put to the sword by the conqueror, "even to the centenarians, and to the baby in the cradle." Then the soldiers carried off everything "down to the nails from the doors"; and whatever was combustible went up in flames. City after city, fortress after fortress, fell into the hands of the conquerors, "until there were no more enemies left in these provinces, and no one who did not obey Tamerlane

Is that what Barack Obama does to Tea Partiers?? Not even close.

There are still unjust wars and killings in the post United Nations era and we have a long way to go but the modern body politic in modern nation states is protected from far, far, far more egregious violations of liberty from the private individuals waiting to become Tamerlanes.

BoatShoes;1434496 wrote:See...that's the thing with libertarians...you guys have such a boner about coercion by actions or coercion placed by popularly elected actors serving a nation-state and yet you seem to neglect all the horrific coercion on the part of unpopularly elected conquerors in the centuries prior to the nation state.

Libertarians have no answer to the Tamerlane's of the world. Not tamerlane from Boston...but Timur the Lame the Central Asian Warlord Conqueror. When would be libertarian/freedom seekers sought uprising or liberty or a change of guard under his rule they were met with terrible vengeance the likes of which occur way less regularly in modern popularly elected nation states.

From "The Mongol Empire"....this is what happens to the Freedom-Desiring Cleveland Bucks under Tamerlane's;



Is that what Barack Obama does to Tea Partiers?? Not even close.

There are still unjust wars and killings in the post United Nations era and we have a long way to go but the modern body politic in modern nation states is protected from far, far, far more egregious violations of liberty from the private individuals waiting to become Tamerlanes.

Barack Obama and George Bush have killed more people than Tamerlane. So did Roosevelt and Hitler and Stalin and Mao and the majority of leaders of nation states, many of those their own people. No thanks for your protection. I would take my chances on my own against anyone who wanted to become Tamerlane.

queencitybuckeye;1434495 wrote:And was proven conclusively wrong on the facts. But instead of just admitting that you lost a round, you'll spend thousand of words of wasted bandwidth explaining what the meaning of is is.

You made a statement.

It was proven wrong.

Man up and admit it.

I find this kind of silly for friendly political debate on a message board. Plenty of reasonable people would say that is an "essential elimination" in throw away language...although techinally not correct in a purely linguistic sense. Plenty of people would say that is not conclusively wrong. I'm sorry but you know this.

But notice, I said that if you were going to be a stickler for the word "essentially" because of 4 deaths at the hands of an automatic weapon in California you could have it. I've used similar language in the context of the reduction of gun deaths in Japan which others on here disputed (LJ I think). If that is what you're going to hang your hat on then you were right and I was wrong lol.

I think plenty of reasonable people might give more leeway to the term "essentially eliminated" but the fact is that I was debating you and you are such a stickler for language whenever we debate and I should not have used those words. I was wrong under your high standards of debate and you are right.

So, to satisfy your higher sensibilities, the NFA does not appear to have "essentially eliminated" deaths at the hands of automatic weapons under rigorous application of language....rather, gun deaths at the hands of automatic weapons happen very rarely in comparison to other firearms....and it just so happens...that we have had a total federal ban on automatic weapons since 1934.

Perhaps someone might argue that it is the case that the NFA greatly reduced (as opposed to essentially eliminated) deaths by automatic weapons.

Or, maybe it's just a coincidence that guns that are banned kill way less people than guns that aren't....

Cleveland Buck;1434503 wrote:Barack Obama and George Bush have killed more people than Tamerlane. So did Roosevelt and Hitler and Stalin and Mao and the majority of leaders of nation states, many of those their own people. No thanks for your protection. I would take my chances on my own against anyone who wanted to become Tamerlane.

Contemporary estimates are that Tamerlane killed 19 million people in a time with less population and less sophisticated means of killing and there was no right to complain that you thought he sucked.

BoatShoes;1434510 wrote:Contemporary estimates are that Tamerlane killed 19 million people in a time with less population and less sophisticated means of killing and there was no right to complain that you thought he sucked.

I was thinking of the wrong guy. Regardless, mass murdering by a guy trying to form a nation-state doesn't exactly prove the need for a nation-state to protect us. And none of this rebuts my point that the government kills many more people than private individuals do, so if your concern is saving lives you ought to start there.

BoatShoes;1434507 wrote:Or, maybe it's just a coincidence that guns that are banned kill way less people than guns that aren't....

link?

BoatShoes;1434366 wrote::rolleyes: What I meant on is improving firearms regulation overall. There need not be bans ever. Cooperation from you folks putting away irrational fears of the future could leave the gun banners out in the cold.

How can you possibly say it's irrational when a ban has occurred in the not-to-distant past?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/02/boy-shoots-sister-my-first-rifle/2128573/

said_aouita;1437185 wrote:









http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/02/boy-shoots-sister-my-first-rifle/2128573/

I'm not sure what those pics had to do with the article. Both of those children were supervised.

I buy my grandkids rifles and pistol toy type for Christmas every year. We talk and demonstrate weapons toy safety .. “Never point a weapon at anyone even a toy” and set rules. As they get older I will purchase a real ammo type weapon, at that point it’s “real” and a high level of safety, rules, locked storage, responsibility and permission to use will be required. If the parents are not responsible and demand the level of precaution for weapon safety then the parents are the failure and at fault.

Respect for weapons creates responsible users..

FatHobbit;1434527 wrote:link?

QCB provided a link showing considerably fewer gun deaths involving automatic weapons which are banned than other weapons like handguns.

It is well documented that hand guns cause most gun deaths...a point often made by firearms enthusiasts when liberals talk about banning "assault weapons".

WebFire;1434533 wrote:How can you possibly say it's irrational when a ban has occurred in the not-to-distant past?

Slippery Slope arguments are usually irrational.....Fearing Reform B because it must certainly Follow from Reform A.

A ban occurred 80 years ago with widespread national support. If there is widespread national support for ban then it would make no difference.

BoatShoes;1437253 wrote:QCB provided a link showing considerably fewer gun deaths involving automatic weapons which are banned than other weapons like handguns.

It is well documented that hand guns cause most gun deaths...a point often made by firearms enthusiasts when liberals talk about banning "assault weapons".

Ah, I misunderstood. I'm wondering now how, but I thought you were talking about an "assault weapons" ban leading to reduced deaths but it's very clear you meant automatic weapons. .

BoatShoes;1437255 wrote:Slippery Slope arguments are usually irrational.....Fearing Reform B because it must certainly Follow from Reform A.

A ban occurred 80 years ago with widespread national support. If there is widespread national support for ban then it would make no difference.

Ummm, we were under a ban less than 10 years ago. You're right, there is no way it could ever happen. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

You are also correct that our gov't only does things when there is widespread national support. :rolleyes: What planet do you live on?

WebFire;1437395 wrote:Ummm, we were under a ban less than 10 years ago. You're right, there is no way it could ever happen. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

You are also correct that our gov't only does things when there is widespread national support. :rolleyes: What planet do you live on?

You are right on the "Assault Weapons Ban". I thought you were referring specifically to the NFA but you were not and that was a mistake on my part. Also, the "Assault Weapons" Ban didn't have "Widespread national support" which I also probably should not have said...but democratic control in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency....and it killed democrats in the next election.

So, more like what I alluded to earlier in the thread....democratic control of both houses of Congress. And so, if the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate and the House, they might pursue a gun ban any way? Why not, when the Congress has republicans in it, pursue firearms legislation that is more sensible so it might calm the passions of democrats if and when they have control of both houses of Congress and the presidency?

Should have said...full control as opposed to widespread support.

Point is...you're worried about what might happen when Democrats have full control....nothing would be stopping them anyway??? Maybe, if some democrats were satisfied by something like Toomey-Manchin, it could take away clout from more liberal democrats??? There are democrats who just want less gun violence and have no real boner for banning guns.

BoatShoes;1437432 wrote:There are democrats who just want less gun violence and have no real boner for banning guns.

When background checks have no real affect on gun violence you don't think those same democrats will decide they need to try something more? (For the children!)

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/02/18013866-10-year-old-boy-among-victims-as-more-than-20-shot-on-one-chicago-day?lite=



But remember, Chicago is a gun ban city.



Change we can believe in ....