The firearm thread

[sugilite:Me]

I wonder how many people Abbott's poli stunt has killed. 35,000 people declined guns after failing a background check. Now at the stroke of an egotistical polies pen, all 35000 can get a gun, including those that never applied knowing they would fail.
Poetic justice would see Abbott get 2 in the head from a psych patient just out of hospital and neighboring gun store. Unfortunately, few pollies ever face real consequences of their bullshit law changes. (missing reelection does not count as much of a consequence if their policies have killed innocent people)

[TheDemonLord]

I wonder how many people Abbott's poli stunt has killed. 35,000 people declined guns after failing a background check. Now at the stroke of an egotistical polies pen, all 35000 can get a gun, including those that never applied knowing they would fail.
Poetic justice would see Abbott get 2 in the head from a psych patient just out of hospital and neighboring gun store. Unfortunately, few pollies ever face real consequences of their bullshit law changes. (missing reelection does not count as much of a consequence if their policies have killed innocent people)

If this is about what I think this is about, it's about Constitutional Carry without the requirement of getting CCP. In which case - both your and the videos statement isn't accurate. The rational is that if it's legal for you to own a Firearm (and pass the background checks to initially obtain it), then it's legal for you to carry it.

O'Rourke makes the point about more women killed by partners with guns - how many of those would be inside the home vs outside the home? I'm gunna hazard a guess and say 99.9999% would be inside the home, therefore the new law would have no bearing on this stat, even assuming that it was 100% effective in stopping people from illegally carrying.

[sugilite:Me]

If this is about what I think this is about, it's about Constitutional Carry without the requirement of getting CCP. In which case - both your and the videos statement isn't accurate. The rational is that if it's legal for you to own a Firearm (and pass the background checks to initially obtain it), then it's legal for you to carry it.

O'Rourke makes the point about more women killed by partners with guns - how many of those would be inside the home vs outside the home? I'm gunna hazard a guess and say 99.9999% would be inside the home, therefore the new law would have no bearing on this stat, even assuming that it was 100% effective in stopping people from illegally carrying.

The trouble with gloss is that it is completely transparent and see through. Interesting you support no background checks letting 35000 people previously declined to arm up - thus supporting more needless gun deaths.

[TheDemonLord]

The trouble with gloss is that it is completely transparent and see through. Interesting you support no background checks letting 35000 people previously declined to arm up - thus supporting more needless gun deaths.

It's not Gloss though - it's trying to dishonestly equate 2 things:

A Background check to purchase a Firearm is not a background check for a CCW Permit.

If you already have the gun, you're already armed up.

[sugilite:Me]

It's not Gloss though - it's trying to dishonestly equate 2 things:

A Background check to purchase a Firearm is not a background check for a CCW Permit.

If you already have the gun, you're already armed up.

Still leads to more death, people deemed not safe to have a CCW now being blessed to do so. Police asked him not to do it, but Abbott still went ahead. More deaths, and if course no accountability for the death dealing pollie. Business as usual.

[sugilite:Me]

I cannot understand why Abbott wanted to make guns even more accessible in Texas, well apart from pandering to potential voters.

[pritch]

Interesting to note that the NRA, which does everything it can to facilitate "freedom" with guns, once again bans guns from its conference.

[TheDemonLord]

Interesting to note that the NRA, which does everything it can to facilitate "freedom" with guns, once again bans guns from its conference.

Let's try that again, only this time with the truth.

It's not the NRA, it's the Secret Service.
And it's because a former president is giving a speech.

[pritch]

Let's try that again, only this time with the truth.

It's not the NRA, it's the Secret Service.
And it's because a former president is giving a speech.

Are you saying guns are permitted? If they are banned, it is the truth.

[TheDemonLord]

Are you saying guns are permitted? If they are banned, it is the truth.

I'm saying that it's not the NRA that banned them, as you stated:

"... The NRA ... Once again bans guns..."

This is an untrue statement.

It should read:

"The Secret Service has banned guns because of blanket rules around sitting and former presidents"

But I guess that doesn't evoke the desired feelings of hypocrisy.

[sugilite:Me]

Musk is bang on with this one.
https://www.thestreet.com/technology...control-debate

[TheDemonLord]

Musk is bang on with this one.
https://www.thestreet.com/technology...control-debate

I agree, Assault Rifles should require proper checks.

Good thing the AR isn't an Assault Rifle...


Okay, Pedantic point-scoring aside - Very few 'pro gun' people that I've interacted with (especially those from the US) object to Background checks, however when I've talked to them there's a theme that keeps coming up:

1: What the average person considers a 'Background check' and what is pushed for in the law are often vastly different
2: It's unclear at best how such a law would work in Private Sales


Also - Remember when Elon made a Flamethower to make a point, cause I do....

[sugilite:Me]

Very few 'pro gun' people that I've interacted with (especially those from the US) object to Background checks

Except the repuplican party. The party of scumbags that are more than happy to have children going to school to get murdered. If course unless it were to happen to their children, then background checks would be approved yesterday I would bet. If I hear another fucken US pollie utter thoughts and prayers.

https://thehill.com/news/house/35013...d-in-congress/

[husaberg]

Are you saying guns are permitted? If they are banned, it is the truth.

Why not ban the people......

[TheDemonLord]

Except the repuplican party. The party of scumbags that are more than happy to have children going to school to get murdered. If course unless it were to happen to their children, then background checks would be approved yesterday I would bet. If I hear another fucken US pollie utter thoughts and prayers.

https://thehill.com/news/house/35013...d-in-congress/

Okay - so remember what I posted, before your article:

2: It's unclear at best how such a law would work in Private Sales

"But unlicensed gun sellers — like those frequently operating at gun shows or on the internet — are not required to conduct the same screenings."

AKA Private Sales. Now, put aside the 'Gun Show Loophole' (which is just a marketing term) - in the US if Person A wants to sell Person B a Firearm, they don't have to do a background check. Let's assume the law comes into effect, how does Person A run these checks on Person B? What are the privacy concerns for Person B?

In NZ, by having a Licensing system, we kinda bypass most (but not all...) of these problems. There is (for example) nothing to stop someone who is licensed from selling to someone who isn't (as we've seen multiple times by people doing sock-puppet purchases) - but for the LFO, by sighting a license, I've effectively done the background check (or at least, a background check up to when the license was issued).

I'll admit I've not read all the details of all the different draft proposed universal background checks - however, given how the discussions I've had with my Yank friends, it's almost always that they come up with some weird and wacky system that is either overly tyrannical or overlying invasive to try and get private sales to do background checks.