Fatal shooting at Denver screening of The Dark Knight Rises

Howey said:
Thanks for proving my point. So-called responsible gun owners taking advantage of a loophole, which it is, to sell weapons without first verifying the buyer should have the weapon.

As far as providing information, you do it every day at the driver's license office. Why not? Shouldn't you be required to do the same thing to buy a gun?
Click to expand...

Since you seem to use the phrase so much, I was wondering if you could show how it fits what you've been professing.

A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically in a variety of circumstances, including taxes, elections, politics, the criminal justice system, or in breaches of security.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I have no problem with people owning weapons for hunting or self defence, I just find it very hard to understand why anyone wants enough weapons to equip a small army.
Click to expand...

Maybe they are collectors....Should someone ask you before buying a legal product?
 
Bijou said:
No checks on the buyer = loophole. Just because it's done on purpose doesn't mean it isn't a loophole. Do nutjobs manage to get guns that way, thus slipping through the cracks? Yes they do. Aka, loophole.
Click to expand...
still the moron, I see. did you ever look up the reasons WHY the law was written so that private sales were NOT regulated? I'm guessing no because the truth would make you look stupid.
 
Bijou said:
The point is whether or not the LAW allows for nutjobs to get guns - it does. The end.
Click to expand...
no, the point is for you to understand WHY it was written that way....ON PURPOSE. See, unlike you idiots who don't need a reason to implement whatever fucktard law you think sounds good, there was an actual REASON why private sales were allowed to remain private and unregulated. So maybe you should look it up to understand why instead of remaining the retarded jackass you continue to be on here.
 
Bijou said:
You actually believe men are more oppressed than women and this ^ is the stuff on which you base that assertion?
Click to expand...

No and I really think you are deliberately trying to misconstrue my words. I am saying that men's lives were no bed of roses either. Let me give you my personal situation, I was born in the early 50s in a rat infested tenement in London's East End to Irish immigrant parents. Our playground was in the streets and the bombed out buildings, many with unexploded bombs. I was lucky to move out when I was six for one of the new towns that were being built to relieve the grinding poverty of London at the time. I managed to get into a secondary school by passing the entrance exam and was able to get to university in the early '70s. At secondary school, there were quite a few women teachers and not just in vocational subjects either. For instance, at various times I had an Indian maths teacher and physics, geography and chemistry teachers who were women.

My father's life was one of back breaking labour until he had to stop in his early '60s to get both hips replaced. My mother certainly didn't have an easy life either but she is still alive at 90 whilst he has been dead many years. I don't know what sort of background you have but I would guess it to be middle class and you went to uni in the 70-80s.
 
Bijou said:
No checks on the buyer = loophole. Just because it's done on purpose doesn't mean it isn't a loophole. Do nutjobs manage to get guns that way, thus slipping through the cracks? Yes they do. Aka, loophole.
Click to expand...

Here is the Merriam Webster definition of "Loophole":

"1: a: a small opening through which small arms may be fired
b: a similar opening to admit light and air or to permit observation


2: a means of escape; especially: an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded"


Now, the regulations for background checks were written specifically for gun dealers. They do not apply to private sales and were never intended to do so. The intent was to regulate gun dealers. Otherwise they would have mentioned private sales in the federal statutes.



As I pointed out before, if you go to renew your drivers licence, and you do not take a physical and get a medical card, are you exploiting a loophole? Holders of a CDL have to get a physical and have a medical card.

If you live in New York, and do not pay Ohio state tax, are you exploiting a loophole?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I have no problem with people owning weapons for hunting or self defence, I just find it very hard to understand why anyone wants enough weapons to equip a small army.
Click to expand...

Some of my firearms are passed down from my grandfather and my father. Some are for small game hunting, some are for big game hunting, some are for hunting smaller birds (like quail), some are for bigger birds like wild turkey and some are for specific tyes of animals (the two of those I have are used to cut the population of invasive species that are doing grave harm). Some of my guns are for defense. I have one for defense and my wife has one for defense, especially when I am out of town working. And some are collectors items that are rarely fired, like limited editions or commemorative pieces. And still others are for shooting sports like skeet or target shooting.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
No and I really think you are deliberately trying to misconstrue my words. I am saying that men's lives were no bed of roses either. Let me give you my personal situation, I was born in the early 50s in a rat infested tenement in London's East End to Irish immigrant parents. Our playground was in the streets and the bombed out buildings, many with unexploded bombs. I was lucky to move out when I was six for one of the new towns that were being built to relieve the grinding poverty of London at the time. I managed to get into a secondary school by passing the entrance exam and was able to get to university in the early '70s. At secondary school, there were quite a few women teachers and not just in vocational subjects either. For instance, at various times I had an Indian maths teacher and physics, geography and chemistry teachers who were women.

My father's life was one of back breaking labour until he had to stop in his early '60s to get both hips replaced. My mother certainly didn't have an easy life either but she is still alive at 90 whilst he has been dead many years. I don't know what sort of background you have but I would guess it to be middle class and you went to uni in the 70-80s.
Click to expand...

Tom - your triumph over adversity is admirable. Like many, you had many obstacles and challenges. Life is seldom easy or effortless unless you're born into wealth and privilege. However, the roughness of life on men versus women wasn't the topic of our discussion. My background, bearing little resemblance to your assumptions, would probably surprise you.
 
Bijou said:
The point is whether or not the LAW allows for nutjobs to get guns - it does. The end.
Click to expand...

Because there is no regulation on private sales, and some nutjobs get guns that way, does not make it a loophole. You cannot simply rewrite the definition of words to suit you.
 
WinterBorn said:
Because there is no regulation on private sales, and some nutjobs get guns that way, does not make it a loophole. You cannot simply rewrite the definition of words to suit you.
Click to expand...

Pick it apart all you want. The point is that the law is flawed, which is why nutjobs get guns that way. Doesn't matter why it was written that way or that the writing was deliberate. Nutjobs getting guns as a result wasn't their intention, yet that's what's happening. The intention was to prevent that - yet it does just the opposite. Loophole. Call it whatever you want to. That's what it is.
 
Bijou said:
The point is whether or not the LAW allows for nutjobs to get guns - it does. The end.
Click to expand...

Just to claify, how many of the recent nutjob shootings (like the Batman movie shooting, the senator in AZ, or the like) have been done with guns purchased from private citizens?

Most of the ones I recall were done with guns bought through dealers, and having had background checks performed.
 
WinterBorn said:
Just to claify, how many of the recent nutjob shootings (like the Batman movie shooting, the senator in AZ, or the like) have been done with guns purchased from private citizens?

Most of the ones I recall were done with guns bought through dealers, and having had background checks performed.
Click to expand...

That's nice. Proof that people who don't slip through any cracks at all can fuck everything up, anyway. Maybe the 'rights' construct needs revisiting, ya think?
 
Bijou said:
Pick it apart all you want. The point is that the law is flawed, which is why nutjobs get guns that way. Doesn't matter why it was written that way or that the writing was deliberate. Nutjobs getting guns as a result wasn't their intention, yet that's what's happening. The intention was to prevent that - yet it does just the opposite. Loophole. Call it whatever you want to. That's what it is.
Click to expand...
the law is not flawed. the end.
 
Bijou said:
That's nice. Proof that people who don't slip through any cracks at all can fuck everything up, anyway. Maybe the 'rights' construct needs revisiting, ya think?
Click to expand...

No, it is proof that despite being shown that there is no loophole, you continue to claim there is a loophole. And despite the fact that the nutjobs in the recent mass shootings got their guns from dealers, you want to regulate private sales to prevent nutjobs from getting guns.

And how, exactly, does one identify a nutjob until they do something?

And, nutjobs aside for a moment, the main use of unregulated firearms would be gang and other criminal activity. Do you think the criminals will be disarmed? They ship tons and tons of illegal narcotics across our borders. Couldn't guns be shipped just as easily?
 
Bijou said:
That's nice. Proof that people who don't slip through any cracks at all can fuck everything up, anyway. Maybe the 'rights' construct needs revisiting, ya think?
Click to expand...

There are about 11,000 gun related murders every year. There are an estimated 70 to 80 million legal gun owners in the US. If every gun related murder was commited by a legal gun owner (obviously that is not even close to true) then only 0.00013% to 0.00015% of the legal gun owners committed murder.

And you want to revisit the rights of 300 million people because of 0.00015% of a set population?
 
WinterBorn said:
No, it is proof that despite being shown that there is no loophole, you continue to claim there is a loophole. And despite the fact that the nutjobs in the recent mass shootings got their guns from dealers, you want to regulate private sales to prevent nutjobs from getting guns.

And how, exactly, does one identify a nutjob until they do something?

And, nutjobs aside for a moment, the main use of unregulated firearms would be gang and other criminal activity. Do you think the criminals will be disarmed? They ship tons and tons of illegal narcotics across our borders. Couldn't guns be shipped just as easily?
Click to expand...

um why worry about the bold... the Obama admin is well known for selling assault rifles to criminals. No need for the guns to cross borders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top