(July 22, 2022 at 1:49 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 22, 2022 at 12:24 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Ahhh insults.....

The last refuge of a failed arguement....

Well, that’s just…charming.

Boru

It wasn't an insult, it was a comment based your statements, you seem convinced that owning a gun (or guns) is the only thing that stops you being murdered, even though the figures show that gun owning America has a much higher level of murders than non gun owning UK (even allowing for the population difference)

Wasteland America gun fetishists are trembling, barely vertical...pussies. There. I said it.

(July 19, 2022 at 3:56 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(July 19, 2022 at 3:49 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It is. It’s a way to free up law enforcement time and resources to enable them to run more and more thorough background checks, which would reduce the number of guns getting into the wrong hands. I would think that you, as a clearly responsible, law-abiding gun owner, would be all over that idea.

Boru

You think I would be all over WASTING TIME checking and re- checking the law abiding??? 

How would you know they're law-abiding without checking? That's the entire point of the background check.

In other words, you're assuming your conclusion, i.e. circular reasoning.

(July 22, 2022 at 2:27 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 19, 2022 at 3:56 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: You think I would be all over WASTING TIME checking and re- checking the law abiding??? 

How would you know they're law-abiding without checking? That's the entire point of the background check.

In other words, you're assuming your conclusion, i.e. circular reasoning.

Your dogmatic faith in background checks rivals the Jebus freak' s faith that they will party with their invisible friend for eternity.

A background check only shows PAST behavior. 
It will show you who has been a bad person - and we assume from that they will be bad in the future. Right?

So checking EVERYBODY - (and the vast majority will show up as good to buy guns. Right?) wastes the majority of the law enforcement resource.

It would be far better to simply make it possible for the average person to be able to access a list of potentially bad people.

(July 22, 2022 at 2:15 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote:

(July 22, 2022 at 1:49 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Well, that’s just…charming.

Boru

It wasn't an insult, it was a comment based your statements, you seem convinced that owning a gun (or guns) is the only thing that stops you being murdered, even though the figures show that gun owning America has a much higher level of murders than non gun owning UK (even allowing for the population difference)

Calling a gun owner a "gun nut" is as unoffending as calling a Brit a " limp wristed limey".

Not all gun owners are gun nuts. I have an arsenal in my closet - but not a single one of those guns is for keeping my neighbors from gut-fucking me. Because that's loon shit. Guns wouldn't even keep me from gut-fucking my neighbors.

(July 22, 2022 at 2:41 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Not all gun owners are gun nuts.  I have an arsenal in my closet - but not a single one of those guns is for keeping my neighbors from gut-fucking me. Because that's loon shit.  Guns wouldn't even keep me from gut-fucking my neighbors.

Yeah... I' m sure your neighbors tremble in fear of your slingshot, bb gun and potato cannon......

(July 22, 2022 at 4:32 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I have another proposal to reduce gun violence - pay the gun industry NOT to make guns. Attend:

-In 2021, gun manufacturers posted $70 billion in profits.

-Gun violence costs the US $557 billion/year.

-Guarantee the gun manufacturers $70 billion in subsidy payments next year and increase the payment by $1 billion every year (makers of ammo and gun accessories could continue to make and sell their products).

-The subsidy would continue until payments equal the current cost of gun violence (487 years).

-This would save the US $487 billion/year, so the programme would self-fund (no net cost to taxpayers). It would also save the cost of background checks, but that's pretty minor.

-The money saved could be invested in gun safety courses, mental health services, and an increased security presence at schools, churches, mosques, and shopping malls.

-Gun makers would not be allowed to fire employees - since they are guaranteed a profit, employees could still be paid at no loss to the company. The lads could sit round and play pinochle or something.

I think this could be a winner.

Boru

You're basing your point on profits, which by definition are what's left over after you've paid out your expenses, including payroll, utilities, and so on You might need to recalibrate your numbers given that. They're still going to have to cover lease or mortgage expenses, employee benefits programs, and so on, all of which expenses are going to chew that $70b up mos' rickey-tick.

I'd add that financially helping these gun mfrs pivot to non-lethal fine-machine production would also be a wise investment. Granted, that would include large outlays for stuff like retooling etc, but you'd keep a productive workforce actually producing goods of high economic value.

(July 22, 2022 at 12:24 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Ahhh insults.....

The last refuge of a failed arguement....

(July 22, 2022 at 2:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Your dogmatic faith in background checks rivals the Jebus freak' s faith that they will party with their invisible friend for eternity.

Where did you get the idea that I have "dogmatic faith" in them? I personally believe that they can be a help, but they are not a panacea.

(July 22, 2022 at 2:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: A background check only shows PAST behavior. 
It will show you who has been a bad person - and we assume from that they will be bad in the future. Right?

Right. But with your assertion that "law-abiding citizens" should not have to submit to background checks means that you're willing to take someone at their word that they have no violent convictions on their record, which I think is (as noted above) both circular reasoning, and more than a touch naive. People do lie, you know.

(July 22, 2022 at 2:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: So checking EVERYBODY - (and the vast majority will show up as good to buy guns. Right?) wastes the majority of the law enforcement resource.

Yet you cannot know who is law-abiding without the checking, so the upshot of your opinion is that no one would be able to know if they're selling to a criminal.

(July 22, 2022 at 2:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: It would be far better to simply make it possible for the average person to be able to access a list of potentially bad people.

Well, let's examine who would compile that list, and on what basis, and how everyone might be able to access this database. You go first, since you're dead-set against government tyranny. Which private authority would you entrust with this sweeping power, and how would you verify that its judgements are accurate? Define "potentially bad" while you're at it? And what if they already own a gun or three?

Background checks have at the very least the benefit of objectivity: a conviction is a fact, not an estimate.