Firearm debate coming need some help
- Thread starter attila787
- Start date
1) Firearms are a right not a need, hence any argument on magazine capacity based on need is moot.
1b) Given that an individual can have multiple magazines, magazine capacity makes little difference. A person with one 1911 with three 7 round magazines or a person with an of a number of high capacity 9mm can reasonably be expected to inflict the same damage, so capacity is not an issue.
2) There is no gun show loophole. we have the right to buy from private sellers. Just because they are in one place and its called a show makes little difference. You can buy jeans in a mall or jeans in a solitary store or from someone on the street, makes no difference.
EDIT: Additionally I would look up stats as to the number of rounds used in the typical shooting I would bet its less then 7, but look it up, start with fbi site.
Also if they use the argument of one individual doing mass attacks and terrorist style damage, then it is the individual not the gun doing the damage, they could just as easily have burned down a building as go on a shooting spree...
1b) Given that an individual can have multiple magazines, magazine capacity makes little difference. A person with one 1911 with three 7 round magazines or a person with an of a number of high capacity 9mm can reasonably be expected to inflict the same damage, so capacity is not an issue.
2) There is no gun show loophole. we have the right to buy from private sellers. Just because they are in one place and its called a show makes little difference. You can buy jeans in a mall or jeans in a solitary store or from someone on the street, makes no difference.
EDIT: Additionally I would look up stats as to the number of rounds used in the typical shooting I would bet its less then 7, but look it up, start with fbi site.
Also if they use the argument of one individual doing mass attacks and terrorist style damage, then it is the individual not the gun doing the damage, they could just as easily have burned down a building as go on a shooting spree...
Crazy88Fingers
New member
Ban hi-cap mags? They're no better or worse than having a few regular magazines. And it seems like some of the aftermarket ones malfunction anyway, so we're probably better off if the loonies use them. Didn't the Tucson shooter's Glock jam with a hi-cap magazine? It's an inanimate object that has many uses. It shouldn't be banned for a potential misuse.
The "gun show loophole" should be regulated at the state level, if at all. A lot of the hype around unchecked gun sales at shows is very overblown. And since there's no registration in Florida, it would be nearly impossible to enforce more regulations. I suspect a lot of people would start "gifting" guns, and then take a $400 payment for cleaning your new gun. And when a law makes otherwise honest people into criminals, it's a bad law.
My grandfather gave me his old S&W revolver one day. Just gave it to me right there in his living room. If private transfers were regulated then we would have had to drive down to an FFL, fill out the paper work, wait there on the phone, and then I'd be allowed to take it if the background check gods were in a good mood. Of course with all that trouble, he probably wouldn't have bothered to give it to me at all. It's private property; we should be allowed to give or sell it to whomever we want. Just like everything else I own.
The "gun show loophole" should be regulated at the state level, if at all. A lot of the hype around unchecked gun sales at shows is very overblown. And since there's no registration in Florida, it would be nearly impossible to enforce more regulations. I suspect a lot of people would start "gifting" guns, and then take a $400 payment for cleaning your new gun. And when a law makes otherwise honest people into criminals, it's a bad law.
My grandfather gave me his old S&W revolver one day. Just gave it to me right there in his living room. If private transfers were regulated then we would have had to drive down to an FFL, fill out the paper work, wait there on the phone, and then I'd be allowed to take it if the background check gods were in a good mood. Of course with all that trouble, he probably wouldn't have bothered to give it to me at all. It's private property; we should be allowed to give or sell it to whomever we want. Just like everything else I own.
Some very broad questions that one could go on and on about forever.
Banning magazines above a certain capacity has no benefit whatsoever in reducing gun violence or violent crime in general. The Clinton era AWB of 1994 had no measurable effect on violent crime, and since that ban expired in 2004, there has been no explosion, or even measurable increase, in violent crime. There is simply no benefit.
More importantly, one has to look only at the 2nd Amendment of Constitution. Contrary to popular perception, the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, and it's not about self-defense either. It was recognized that the country, in order to be able to stand, needed to maintain a military, but a military could be a dangerous thing if the government grew to be tyrannical as it could be used to subjugate the population. As a result it was seen as essential that ordinary people should have the right to arm themselves as a way to keep tyrannical ambitions in check. It has been said (the quote is usually attributed to Mao Zedong) that political power flows from the barrel of a gun, hence countries like China have deprived their citizenry of firearms and puts them into the hands of only their military. This is why it is essential that here in the USA, the right to bear arms remains in hands of the people and any attempt at eroding these rights through actions like banning magazine of certain capacity or the like, runs deeply contrary to the intention of the 2nd Amendment.
The gun show loophole does not exist. The term "gun show loophole" seems to have been popularized by the media and suggests that a gun show is the sort of place where all gun laws just go out the window, that it's a free-for-all where anyone and everyone can buy and sell all that they wish without having to worry or even think about the law. This is simply untrue. All of the laws regarding firearms ownership, buying, selling, transferring all still apply at a gun show as much as they do outside of it. Any federally licensed firearms dealer is required to do a background check on any non-licensee that they transfer a firearm to, this is as true at a gun show as it is in any gun store.
What often gets mistaken for being the "loophole" is the fact that many states allow private individuals to sell/trade/gift/transfer their personally-owned guns to residents of the same state provided that both parties are legally allowed to possess firearms without something like a background check. That is, if say Uncle Bob owns a Mauser rifle or a Glock 17 he can take it a gun show (because after all, there are lots of people there looking to buy guns) and sell them or trade them or whatever, to anyone legally allowed to receive them, but in such a state, Uncle Bob can do the same thing outside of a gun show setting as well, if say he posted an ad in the paper or online.
Banning magazines above a certain capacity has no benefit whatsoever in reducing gun violence or violent crime in general. The Clinton era AWB of 1994 had no measurable effect on violent crime, and since that ban expired in 2004, there has been no explosion, or even measurable increase, in violent crime. There is simply no benefit.
More importantly, one has to look only at the 2nd Amendment of Constitution. Contrary to popular perception, the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, and it's not about self-defense either. It was recognized that the country, in order to be able to stand, needed to maintain a military, but a military could be a dangerous thing if the government grew to be tyrannical as it could be used to subjugate the population. As a result it was seen as essential that ordinary people should have the right to arm themselves as a way to keep tyrannical ambitions in check. It has been said (the quote is usually attributed to Mao Zedong) that political power flows from the barrel of a gun, hence countries like China have deprived their citizenry of firearms and puts them into the hands of only their military. This is why it is essential that here in the USA, the right to bear arms remains in hands of the people and any attempt at eroding these rights through actions like banning magazine of certain capacity or the like, runs deeply contrary to the intention of the 2nd Amendment.
The gun show loophole does not exist. The term "gun show loophole" seems to have been popularized by the media and suggests that a gun show is the sort of place where all gun laws just go out the window, that it's a free-for-all where anyone and everyone can buy and sell all that they wish without having to worry or even think about the law. This is simply untrue. All of the laws regarding firearms ownership, buying, selling, transferring all still apply at a gun show as much as they do outside of it. Any federally licensed firearms dealer is required to do a background check on any non-licensee that they transfer a firearm to, this is as true at a gun show as it is in any gun store.
What often gets mistaken for being the "loophole" is the fact that many states allow private individuals to sell/trade/gift/transfer their personally-owned guns to residents of the same state provided that both parties are legally allowed to possess firearms without something like a background check. That is, if say Uncle Bob owns a Mauser rifle or a Glock 17 he can take it a gun show (because after all, there are lots of people there looking to buy guns) and sell them or trade them or whatever, to anyone legally allowed to receive them, but in such a state, Uncle Bob can do the same thing outside of a gun show setting as well, if say he posted an ad in the paper or online.
There's no point. There has never been an instance where a magazine limit has reduced crime.
When the Clinton "assault weapons" ban was about to go into effect, the manufacturers just cranked out tons of high cap mags. The importers imported tons also. There were always plenty available. The price went up, but you could always buy them.
There are 4.8592 zillion high-cap mags in this country now and no record of who owns them. How would they enforce a ban?
How about a "want ads loophole"? How about a "guy who I work with loophole"? How about a "neighbor loophole"?
You get the idea.
Of course, that's all moot. See recent SCOTUS decisions.
carguychris
New member
+1, and here's another way to look at it.
Gun shows are big, highly visible, public events attended by all sorts of people, including cops. Quite a few cops, generally.
Criminals don't like to draw attention to themselves. If they want to obtain a tool for an illegal act, are they going to do it in a huge room filled with hundreds of people they don't know, including numerous cops, or will they do it behind closed doors with someone they believe they can trust? The answer is pretty obvious.
Eliminating private sales ("closing the gun show loophole") will burden many hobbyists and ordinary law-abiding citizens while providing little or no real deterrent to criminals who already get their guns elsewhere for the most part. (A study with interviews of incarcerated felons proved this last point, although I don't have the citation handy.)
IMHO the idea is a feel-good measure for people who fundamentally believe that private ownership of weapons is immoral. [Earlier and more strongly worded comments judiciously edited out to avoid premature thread meltdown. Pardon me.
]
Last edited:
Since you asked for citations...
There are a few good common sense pro citations you can use:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...e-reasons-not-to-ban-high-capacity-magazines/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ould-congress-ban-high-capacity-gun-magazines
Some interesting points here.
In the 'talking points memo', you will find some interesting arguments here:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...clip_bill_just_a_scheme_to_impose_gun_ban.php
If you need 'anti' citations, here are 2 for high capacity magazines:
http://www.lcav.org/content/large_capacity_ammunition_magazines.pdf
www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons/highcapacity
Both sites have been vocal on 'right to bear arms' is limited to nothing bigger than a .177 pop gun, or women with their biceps showing
In a return to a psuedo-McCarty era in a slightly different vein, you can read
http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=155&itemid=1719
You can form you own opinions, depending upon which side you have to defend.
"High Capacity" is all relative: While 10 - 15 - 20 might be considered high capacity, you can get a Romanian Drako (AK-47 pistol) with a 100 round magazine. From a practical purpose, it's pretty heavy, but a very stable platform.
Good luck!
There are a few good common sense pro citations you can use:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...e-reasons-not-to-ban-high-capacity-magazines/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ould-congress-ban-high-capacity-gun-magazines
Some interesting points here.
In the 'talking points memo', you will find some interesting arguments here:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...clip_bill_just_a_scheme_to_impose_gun_ban.php
If you need 'anti' citations, here are 2 for high capacity magazines:
http://www.lcav.org/content/large_capacity_ammunition_magazines.pdf
www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons/highcapacity
Both sites have been vocal on 'right to bear arms' is limited to nothing bigger than a .177 pop gun, or women with their biceps showing
In a return to a psuedo-McCarty era in a slightly different vein, you can read
http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=155&itemid=1719
You can form you own opinions, depending upon which side you have to defend.
"High Capacity" is all relative: While 10 - 15 - 20 might be considered high capacity, you can get a Romanian Drako (AK-47 pistol) with a 100 round magazine. From a practical purpose, it's pretty heavy, but a very stable platform.
Good luck!
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Reference: The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.Atilla787 said:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Since the class is ethics, I think the argument should be, why would anyone propose that it is "ethical" to promulgate laws that are in direct contravention to one of the fundamental freedoms GUARANTEED to us by the Constitution?
And the Heller and MacDonald decisions at the Supreme Court have now stated that the right to keep and bear arms IS a "fundamental," "individual" right.
Trying to close the non-existent "gun show loophole" is an infringement. Limiting magazine capacity is an infringement. In fact, requiring a license or permit to carry is an infringement. What is the ethical justification for contravening a right expressly guaranteed by the Constitution? In other words, what is the ethical justification for infringing that which the Constitution says shall not be infringed?
What's a "high capacity" magazine? The standard capacity mag for a .45acp 1911 is 7 rounds. Many are sold now that hold 8. Is that high capacity?
I have a 9mm that holds 17 in the mag as standard. Shouldn't the 10-round mags that some states require be called "Reduced Capacity"?
I have a 9mm that holds 17 in the mag as standard. Shouldn't the 10-round mags that some states require be called "Reduced Capacity"?
Walklightly
Moderator
March 30, 1981.
Look it up, if you have time.
BRADY
Look it up, if you have time.
BRADY
Look up the average number of shots fired per firearm homicide. You may have to search scholarly journals, but you should have access. I would imagine the number is somewhere between three and six, which would make a ban of hi cap mags highly silly. This would be the most effective argument.
Described simply, a magazine is a metal box with a spring in it. It's a scaled up Pez dispenser. It's not that hard to make, and would be a hot item on the black market.
Also, a "hi-cap" ban would reshape the market.
One path is that firearm trends would be about the same as now, but with limited capacity. The problem is that currently, there are massive amounts of hi cap mags floating around. When such legislation is announced, production and imports will surge and the supply will temporarily balloon. Then, hi caps will continue to be readily available, just with prices slowly increasing as the supply dries up. This is what happened from 1994 to 2004, and didn't appear to have any affect on crime.
When hi cap magazine prices are too high, firearm design will trend in two directions. More powerful cartridges will be utilized in order to maximize the effectiveness of 10 rounds, and firearms will become more compact and more readily concealable since 10 rounds doesn't take up a lot of room.
Compare crime rates of states with AWB's (AWB's generally contain magazine capacity restrictions) to states without them. The states with them tend to have drastically higher crime rates, although for a variety of reasons.
A probable example of why to ban hi cap mags is tragedies is this or similar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_School_massacre
You could probably find similar instances of where low-cap weapons were used to greater effect, such as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
Arguing the gun show loophole will be difficult. It's a stupid term since it doesn't really have anything at all to do with gun shows, but that isn't really an effective argument. You could argue that a majority of crime guns are obtained illegally anyways and that it wouldn't make a difference. Another argument is that background checks aren't that effective anyways and give examples such as Jared Loughner obtaining guns.
Described simply, a magazine is a metal box with a spring in it. It's a scaled up Pez dispenser. It's not that hard to make, and would be a hot item on the black market.
Also, a "hi-cap" ban would reshape the market.
One path is that firearm trends would be about the same as now, but with limited capacity. The problem is that currently, there are massive amounts of hi cap mags floating around. When such legislation is announced, production and imports will surge and the supply will temporarily balloon. Then, hi caps will continue to be readily available, just with prices slowly increasing as the supply dries up. This is what happened from 1994 to 2004, and didn't appear to have any affect on crime.
When hi cap magazine prices are too high, firearm design will trend in two directions. More powerful cartridges will be utilized in order to maximize the effectiveness of 10 rounds, and firearms will become more compact and more readily concealable since 10 rounds doesn't take up a lot of room.
Compare crime rates of states with AWB's (AWB's generally contain magazine capacity restrictions) to states without them. The states with them tend to have drastically higher crime rates, although for a variety of reasons.
A probable example of why to ban hi cap mags is tragedies is this or similar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_School_massacre
You could probably find similar instances of where low-cap weapons were used to greater effect, such as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
Arguing the gun show loophole will be difficult. It's a stupid term since it doesn't really have anything at all to do with gun shows, but that isn't really an effective argument. You could argue that a majority of crime guns are obtained illegally anyways and that it wouldn't make a difference. Another argument is that background checks aren't that effective anyways and give examples such as Jared Loughner obtaining guns.
Spats McGee
Administrator
High Cap Mag Ban:
Silly, unenforceable, and unethical. First, how do you define "high capacity?" 15 rounds? 10? 3?
Second, it only affects those who abide by it. Even if you assume that such a ban would reduce the effectiveness of a person to harm other people, it has no effect on those who ignore it. Personally, I cannot ever remember seeing a story about an active shooter that said, ". . . . the shooter's roommate told us that the shooter wanted to take his 33-round magazines, but couldn't as a result of the HCM ban. As a result, he was limited to 15 rounds, and 18 lives were spared."
If a law limits the ability of the law-abiding to defend themselves against those who break the law, how can it be ethical?
Gun Show Loophole:
There's no such thing. The "loophole" is a myth. All sales at gun shows are governed by the same laws as any other firearm transfer.
Silly, unenforceable, and unethical. First, how do you define "high capacity?" 15 rounds? 10? 3?
Second, it only affects those who abide by it. Even if you assume that such a ban would reduce the effectiveness of a person to harm other people, it has no effect on those who ignore it. Personally, I cannot ever remember seeing a story about an active shooter that said, ". . . . the shooter's roommate told us that the shooter wanted to take his 33-round magazines, but couldn't as a result of the HCM ban. As a result, he was limited to 15 rounds, and 18 lives were spared."
If a law limits the ability of the law-abiding to defend themselves against those who break the law, how can it be ethical?
Gun Show Loophole:
There's no such thing. The "loophole" is a myth. All sales at gun shows are governed by the same laws as any other firearm transfer.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Use google scholar or the school's social science databases to search on Koper and Roth - you need for graduate school original sources and not internet ones.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Look at all the major shooting incidents, and the shooter either reloaded, or was prepared to.
Luby's Cafeteria, Kileen, TX -- shooter had multiple magazines and IIRC reloaded during the assault
Fort Hood, TX -- shooter had two handguns and multiple reloads
Virginia Tech -- Shooter had two handguns and multiple reloads
Columbine -- both shooters carried multiple reloads, and reloaded multiple times.
The recent incident on the youth camp in Sweden (?? Denmark??) -- the shooter had multiple reloads, and reloaded multiple times during the assault
Gabby Giffords -- the shooter had a "high capacity" magazine that jammed, which is what stopped the attack. The bystanders jumped him while he was attempting to reload.
Abraham Lincoln was killed with a single shot from a one-shot Derringer. John F. Kennedy was killed by an "obsolete" bolt-action rifle that had a magazine capacity of something like three or five rounds. Robert Kennedy, I believe, was killed with a revolver. Jack Ruby, the guy who shot RFK's assassin, used a 5- or 6-shot revolver.
Thus, from an ethics perspective, since history shows that magazine/firearm capacity is meaningless and that small-capacity firearms have been involved in more high-profile assassinations than so-called "high capacity" firearms ... what possible ethical basis could there be for enacting an arbitrary ban that history has already proven cannot be effective?
Luby's Cafeteria, Kileen, TX -- shooter had multiple magazines and IIRC reloaded during the assault
Fort Hood, TX -- shooter had two handguns and multiple reloads
Virginia Tech -- Shooter had two handguns and multiple reloads
Columbine -- both shooters carried multiple reloads, and reloaded multiple times.
The recent incident on the youth camp in Sweden (?? Denmark??) -- the shooter had multiple reloads, and reloaded multiple times during the assault
Gabby Giffords -- the shooter had a "high capacity" magazine that jammed, which is what stopped the attack. The bystanders jumped him while he was attempting to reload.
Abraham Lincoln was killed with a single shot from a one-shot Derringer. John F. Kennedy was killed by an "obsolete" bolt-action rifle that had a magazine capacity of something like three or five rounds. Robert Kennedy, I believe, was killed with a revolver. Jack Ruby, the guy who shot RFK's assassin, used a 5- or 6-shot revolver.
Thus, from an ethics perspective, since history shows that magazine/firearm capacity is meaningless and that small-capacity firearms have been involved in more high-profile assassinations than so-called "high capacity" firearms ... what possible ethical basis could there be for enacting an arbitrary ban that history has already proven cannot be effective?
It does not matter what "gun" laws you enact, criminals will not abide by them, and the only people restricted are the ones that abide the law.
People have a natural right and duty to defend themselves, their families, their property and the state from those that would take it by force.
Here are some things for you to reference. The Sullivan act: http://cavalierknight.com/pages/sullivan.act.html
The Harvard university study: http://cavalierknight.com/pages/harvard.html
A Psycholigists report: http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
Mag size, and weapon style are just smoke and mirrors to cover attemps to restrict the law abiding citizen...see the Sullivan act.
Edited to add: I personally have no use for a full auto weapon, but I do not see any reason that a non-volent criminal should not be able to own and fire one in a safe manner if they wish. It is called "Freedom", that is, allowing the other guy to do His thing, so you can expect to do yours. If you will not allow the other guy his "thing" (that does not damage anyone else) how can you expect your neighbor to allow you to do what you want to, that he does not?
People have a natural right and duty to defend themselves, their families, their property and the state from those that would take it by force.
Here are some things for you to reference. The Sullivan act: http://cavalierknight.com/pages/sullivan.act.html
The Harvard university study: http://cavalierknight.com/pages/harvard.html
A Psycholigists report: http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
Mag size, and weapon style are just smoke and mirrors to cover attemps to restrict the law abiding citizen...see the Sullivan act.
Edited to add: I personally have no use for a full auto weapon, but I do not see any reason that a non-volent criminal should not be able to own and fire one in a safe manner if they wish. It is called "Freedom", that is, allowing the other guy to do His thing, so you can expect to do yours. If you will not allow the other guy his "thing" (that does not damage anyone else) how can you expect your neighbor to allow you to do what you want to, that he does not?
Last edited:
carguychris
New member
Re: Gun Show Loophole...
The study I referenced earlier was "The Armed Criminal in America", James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, 1986.
Link to summary:
http://www.rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html
The summary in the link doesn't talk about gun shows, but IIRC only a small percentage of the interviewed felons obtained the guns legally from a retail source, and only a fraction of those buyers got them from a seller at a gun show. It amounted to only a very small percentage of the total, something like 3%.
The study I referenced earlier was "The Armed Criminal in America", James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, 1986.
Link to summary:
http://www.rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html
The summary in the link doesn't talk about gun shows, but IIRC only a small percentage of the interviewed felons obtained the guns legally from a retail source, and only a fraction of those buyers got them from a seller at a gun show. It amounted to only a very small percentage of the total, something like 3%.
a lot of the questions are themselves biased. What is the definition of a 'high capacity' magazine unless you are asking from the assumption that there is a logical limit that should have been your starting point? If a pistol holds 17 rounds within the grip frame, why would an 11 round capacity be considered "high"? I might stipulate to you that for that pistol an 18 rounder that sticks out past the bottom might be considered "high" but from a legal standpoint? No way. It's merely a description. And along with their "high capacity" over ten rounds, consider the entirety of that monster- the rest of the limitations were absolutely irrelevant cosmetic things- flash hiders, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, etc.- and should inform your understanding of the magazine capacity limitation as well.
You have to begin any argument from the Constitutional standpoint. I AM A CITIZEN, I am the authority over my life, I hire government to assist me in doing things on my behalf. Taking my rights is not and cannot be a function of that government, or it is not doing what I hired it to do and is not a legitimate Constitutional government, and it is my duty to change it.
read this:
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
You have to begin any argument from the Constitutional standpoint. I AM A CITIZEN, I am the authority over my life, I hire government to assist me in doing things on my behalf. Taking my rights is not and cannot be a function of that government, or it is not doing what I hired it to do and is not a legitimate Constitutional government, and it is my duty to change it.
read this:
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
It is unethical to shoot people for fun and profit. Its a crime, and has been since we used pointed sticks, rocks and sharp pieces of metal.
Since it is illegal, immoral, and unethical to do harm to others for pleasure or personal gain, why do we waste effort, money and resources arguing and making laws about what is allowed or not allowed to do this with?
If you criminally shoot someone with a muzzleloader, is that less of a crime than if you used an AK with a 30 shot "clip"? How?
And how is that more of a crime than if you bash in their head with a baseball bat, golf club, tire iron, or 2x4?
Explain that to me in an ethics class!
laws like magazine restictions are all about what someone might do, what they could do, not about what they will do, and are nothing but prior restraint on everyone's right to own such private property as they see fit. (see pursuit of happiness...)
Seeing mere mechanical things as evil (or even as symbols of evil) is to me, a form of mental illness. Perhaps we would be better off if we just locked up gun control advocates, for their own safety, of course. After all, the only guns in prisons are the ones in the hands of authority (the guards) it ought to be the safest place on earth, right?
As to the "gun show loophole", that's another made up phrase, pretending to be factualy descriptive, while actually being a complete LIE. There is NO "loophole".
How can following the law be considered a loophole? Are your legitimate tax deductions a loophole? Or are they following the law as written? Using the loophole phrase implies that you know what the legislature meant to do, and in your opinion they failed to do it. It implies that we are "getting away with something" that we shouldn't be able to do.
Using their phrase to argue with automatically cedes the point that their view is the correct and proper one.
They do this all the time. They make up a phrase (sound bite), one that sounds accurate and descriptive, but really isn't, and then we have to argue both that their terms are inaccurate AND their premise is wrong.
FFL dealers at gun shows follow the same laws they do at their shops. Private citizens selling their personal property (guns) at gun shows follow the same state and federal laws they do everywhere else in that state. period.
Otherwise, they are breaking the law, and performing a criminal act. The guy who breaks the law selling at a gun show breaks the same law selling out of his car trunk in an alley. And he is just as much a gun dealer as the dope pusher is an unlicensed pharmacist!
But the reporters will only tell you about how "gun dealers" are not doing background checks at gunshows. Which is not the whole truth, or even close to it.
And if the other side brings up the recent mass shootings, and then tries to claim that lives would have been saved if there had been background checks the "loophole" allowed them to avoid, come back with both barrels. Do a little research and you will see that in virtually EVERY mass shooting incident since the mid 1980s, the deranged shooters either passed a background check, or would have passed one if they had gone through it. There have even been cases where the shooter's mental state was priviledged information that by law could not be given to the agency doing the background check! (see Patrick Purdy the Stockton Ca shooter; he actually went through CA's extensive background check system TWICE, and was approved for a couple of pistols before going on his rampage, with an semi auto AK)
I'm ranting, sorry. What it boils down to is this, there is nothing ethical about gun control, in my view, and the gunshow loophole is lying propaganda.
end rant, goodnight.
Since it is illegal, immoral, and unethical to do harm to others for pleasure or personal gain, why do we waste effort, money and resources arguing and making laws about what is allowed or not allowed to do this with?
If you criminally shoot someone with a muzzleloader, is that less of a crime than if you used an AK with a 30 shot "clip"? How?
And how is that more of a crime than if you bash in their head with a baseball bat, golf club, tire iron, or 2x4?
Explain that to me in an ethics class!
laws like magazine restictions are all about what someone might do, what they could do, not about what they will do, and are nothing but prior restraint on everyone's right to own such private property as they see fit. (see pursuit of happiness...)
Seeing mere mechanical things as evil (or even as symbols of evil) is to me, a form of mental illness. Perhaps we would be better off if we just locked up gun control advocates, for their own safety, of course. After all, the only guns in prisons are the ones in the hands of authority (the guards) it ought to be the safest place on earth, right?
As to the "gun show loophole", that's another made up phrase, pretending to be factualy descriptive, while actually being a complete LIE. There is NO "loophole".
How can following the law be considered a loophole? Are your legitimate tax deductions a loophole? Or are they following the law as written? Using the loophole phrase implies that you know what the legislature meant to do, and in your opinion they failed to do it. It implies that we are "getting away with something" that we shouldn't be able to do.
Using their phrase to argue with automatically cedes the point that their view is the correct and proper one.
They do this all the time. They make up a phrase (sound bite), one that sounds accurate and descriptive, but really isn't, and then we have to argue both that their terms are inaccurate AND their premise is wrong.
FFL dealers at gun shows follow the same laws they do at their shops. Private citizens selling their personal property (guns) at gun shows follow the same state and federal laws they do everywhere else in that state. period.
Otherwise, they are breaking the law, and performing a criminal act. The guy who breaks the law selling at a gun show breaks the same law selling out of his car trunk in an alley. And he is just as much a gun dealer as the dope pusher is an unlicensed pharmacist!
But the reporters will only tell you about how "gun dealers" are not doing background checks at gunshows. Which is not the whole truth, or even close to it.
And if the other side brings up the recent mass shootings, and then tries to claim that lives would have been saved if there had been background checks the "loophole" allowed them to avoid, come back with both barrels. Do a little research and you will see that in virtually EVERY mass shooting incident since the mid 1980s, the deranged shooters either passed a background check, or would have passed one if they had gone through it. There have even been cases where the shooter's mental state was priviledged information that by law could not be given to the agency doing the background check! (see Patrick Purdy the Stockton Ca shooter; he actually went through CA's extensive background check system TWICE, and was approved for a couple of pistols before going on his rampage, with an semi auto AK)
I'm ranting, sorry. What it boils down to is this, there is nothing ethical about gun control, in my view, and the gunshow loophole is lying propaganda.
end rant, goodnight.
Ummm,
Need some help for a graduate ethics class.
D47: Then go to the library and study.
Why or why not ban high capacity mags?
D47: What does this have to do with ethics? This is like asking if a 55 mph speed limit is ethical. See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics
Do you feel that the "gunshow loophole" should be controlled or completely banned at a federal level. Why or why not?
D47: Again, what does this have to do with ethics?
If you can provide references that would be great.
D47: See item 1 above. Do your own homework.
As much as I would all love to see every gun debate carried eloquently and overwhelmingly by the side of reason and 2nd amendment advocates, I think that we all need to recognize that the point of going to school is to work on your OWN ability to do research, think critically about an issue and to formulate an argument that effectively presents your view.
Don't ask other people to do your homework for you. You're cheating yourself.
Need some help for a graduate ethics class.
D47: Then go to the library and study.
Why or why not ban high capacity mags?
D47: What does this have to do with ethics? This is like asking if a 55 mph speed limit is ethical. See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics
Do you feel that the "gunshow loophole" should be controlled or completely banned at a federal level. Why or why not?
D47: Again, what does this have to do with ethics?
If you can provide references that would be great.
D47: See item 1 above. Do your own homework.
As much as I would all love to see every gun debate carried eloquently and overwhelmingly by the side of reason and 2nd amendment advocates, I think that we all need to recognize that the point of going to school is to work on your OWN ability to do research, think critically about an issue and to formulate an argument that effectively presents your view.
Don't ask other people to do your homework for you. You're cheating yourself.