dawny0826
Mother Heathen
Exactly.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
6-Month-Old Dead After Being Shot 5 Times In Chicago
- Thread starter Dirty Penguin
- Start date
Exactly.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
There are communities where virtually every household has a gun, yet gun violence is completely unheard of, so it's short-sighted to suggest that guns are the issue in and of themselves. Violent and criminal behavior has a lot of psychological and sociological factors to consider.
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
Where is that? Communities? Are we talking... like, suburbs or something? Like certain developments?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I grew up in midwest small towns where the majority of households has guns, yet gun crime happening there is totally unheard of. People don't seem to get that violence is a psychological, sociological, cultural issue.
Rural areas. Michigan, for one. If you are out in the sticks, the chances are you are going to have multiple guns, some for hunting and some "just for fun". And last I checked, gun violence is rather rare up in the good ole U.P. where the first day of deer season is an unofficial holiday.
esmith
Veteran Member
I "think" that Father Heathen was putting forth a point that just because there are numerous firearms in a home/community that this in itself alone does not suggest that "gun violence" happens. If one would look at the data it would show that the majority of gun violence occurs within the inner-city compared to a low population density area and/or in the suburbs. Suggesting that gun violence could be linked to population density; However, this is a false conclusion if one looks at the incidents of gun violence in a certain areas of NYC that have a high population density but low incidents of gun violence. These areas however are economically sound. This then leads to the supposition that economics or lack of is the determining factor in gun violence. Yet again this is not a valid assumption if we look at various areas that are not in the middle to upper economic strata and are even in the lower economic situation that do not have incidents of gun violence. However if we combine a poor economic situation with a high population density we can make the valid assumption that this is the major factor in gun violence. Therefor one would assume that if the issue of high population density and a low economic living stranded is addressed gun violence could be reduced. However, population density can not be changed but the economics of the areas can be acted upon. But, to affect the economics of a area you have to look at the education of the population and the socology of that population.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I don't think background checks are going to help. Obviously the problem isn't lack of gun control, it is too much gun control. I propose we attach mini-machine guns to some robotic shoulder mounted device that fires the weapon randomly in all directions if it perceives any kind of threat or loud noises, and then we make them mandatory for people to wear in public places. Really, that's the only logical way to deal with gun violence, also I'm pretty sure it's what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
.... Sounds like RoboCop or Preditor....LOL!!!!
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
tytlyf
Not Religious
Why not? No check required
Last edited:
esmith
Veteran Member
Why not? No check required
Typical distortion of the anti-gun crowd. Why do you print something without checking your facts? Probably because you refuse to believe facts only opinions. A person from one state can not legally purchase a firearm in another state without going through a FFL dealer..THIS INCLUDES PRIVATE SALES!!!!
From the Gun Control Act of 1968
B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?
A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.
(B2) From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA? [Back]
A person may only acquire a firearm within the persons own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
(B3) May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchasers own State? [Back]
A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser's State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.
A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.
(B2) From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA? [Back]
A person may only acquire a firearm within the persons own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
(B3) May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchasers own State? [Back]
A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser's State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.
Last edited:
tytlyf
Not Religious
Tell that to the irresponsible gun owners that don't bother to check if he's out of state or not. Cash talks, laws don't.
esmith
Veteran Member
Then they are breaking the law. So, in your perfect world when you pass all of the laws you want, people will not break the law? Let's take the proposal for UBC. Just because the law is passed doesn't meant it will not be broken. Under your false reasoning from above, what would stop the same person from selling a weapon without doing a background check?
dust1n
Zindīq
What area? It's hard to find gun crime rates for unspecific areas.
esmith
Veteran Member
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Anywhere that's not heavily urbanized and impoverished, really. It's a bit silly for people to take the crime and violence that happens routinely within gang-ridden ghettos and then present it as if it somehow represents the state of the nation as a whole.
tytlyf
Not Religious
UBC's are needed. Not my problem if 8 out of 10 gun owners want them. The majority of America wants them, why don't you? Please don't parade some NRA talking point.
The U.P. is pretty specific. It's a whole congressional district. You could try "Schoolcraft county" or "Marquette" or "Houghton" for specific names.
For lower Michigan, Grand Rapids and its surrounding areas has very little gun crime and rather high gun ownership. The towns I grew up in, the local highschools would make the opening day of hunting a day off since they knew all the boys and some of the girls would be out hunting, and the rest of the girls would say "screw it! why do we have to go to school when no one else is."
By this reasoning, we shouldn't have any laws whatsoever. The law itself, and the punishment for breaking the law, is the deterant. If it doesn't deter you, and you get caught, then you pay the fine or get jail time.
esmith
Veteran Member
Lets take a look at what I was objecting to in relation to the following posts.
1. Dirty Penguin copied a section from the newspaper article he referenced as follows:
I then pointed out the misinformation that Dirty Penguin was suggesting and the support of this dis-information by tytlyf and suggested that they research their data before posting it.
Then tytlyf made the mistake of supporting those that oppose changing the background check to include private party sells. As you can see from his post that it doesn't matter if the law is changed because irresponsible gun owners could care less.
1. Dirty Penguin copied a section from the newspaper article he referenced as follows:
Implying that the subject of the article could have gone to a gun show in Washington or Nevada and legally purchased a gun without a background check. Then tytlyf furthered the misinformation with the following:
Why not? No check required
I then pointed out the misinformation that Dirty Penguin was suggesting and the support of this dis-information by tytlyf and suggested that they research their data before posting it.
Then tytlyf made the mistake of supporting those that oppose changing the background check to include private party sells. As you can see from his post that it doesn't matter if the law is changed because irresponsible gun owners could care less.
We now have tytlyf tripping off into left-field with a rant against the NRA and a unrelated statement.
We now get to hear from Falylun, who probably didn't read the entire section and goes in a completely different direction.