Mass Shooting in Texas leaves 10 people dead

[Aim64C]

Spoiler

those who are lazy ass and cant sum up teh wikepdia pages they copy past to us Should be treated like low IQ memberz..

When I simply state something, you lot insist I have no source.
When I simply post a link, no one reads it.
When I post a few lines from the link, I am accused of cherry-picking from my source or of using an invalid source.

What it boils down to is very, very simple, sunshine. There are millions of armed citizens around the U.S. who are not, at all, pleased with your antics. You want to insult and smear these people while they try and explain to you, calmly and logically, why they think the way they do.

As your entire argument is vacuous and devoid of meaning, we have no choice but to declare an impasse. Any further curtailing of the second amendment will be grounds for declaration of treason and summary execution.

 

[Lightbringer]

Those who would petition to have the rights of others restricted, while refusing to read a mere page of text related to the grievances of doing so, should be shot.

1. Dude, I read your wall of text, yet you clearly didn't read my sentence response. I never argued that gun shows were the main source of illegal weapon trafficking nor the percentage of it. You asserted that argument toward me. My argument was that guns can be bought on the spot at gun shows without background checks. This is an indisputable fact.

2. You are wrong. Straw Purchasing of firearms is illegal by law (having someone else buy the gun for you).

3. The topic is school shootings which is primarily done by students who have easy access to firearms. Why are you bringing other criminals into this?

4. Educate yourself a little:

You must be registered for see links

"An ATF study of 1,530 gun trafficking cases determined that straw purchasers were involved in almost one-half (46%) of the investigations, and were associated with nearly 26,000 illegally trafficked firearms

A 2007 study found that straw purchases were significantly more common at gun shows in states with little regulation (Arizona, Florida, Nevada and Texas) than at gun shows in California, which regulates gun shows and requires background checks for all firearm transfers."



So yeah, your entire wall of text was literally about nothing that I was talking about.

 

[minamoto]

When I simply state something, you lot insist I have no source.
When I simply post a link, no one reads it.
When I post a few lines from the link, I am accused of cherry-picking from my source or of using an invalid source.

What it boils down to is very, very simple, sunshine. There are millions of armed citizens around the U.S. who are not, at all, pleased with your antics. You want to insult and smear these people while they try and explain to you, calmly and logically, why they think the way they do.

As your entire argument is vacuous and devoid of meaning, we have no choice but to declare an impasse. Any further curtailing of the second amendment will be grounds for declaration of treason and summary execution.

no no no no no...stop trying to act like nice guy..i justed asked u nicely to sum up ur ideas..and u started acting like keyboard warrior...

anyway what's subject is about...??? gunz???...or banning gunz....??..

 

[minamoto]

where is armC4????..look like he ran away....dat chiken!!..

 

[Aim64C]

1. Dude, I read your wall of text, yet you clearly didn't read my sentence response. I never argued that gun shows were the main source of illegal weapon trafficking nor the percentage of it. You asserted that argument toward me. My argument was that guns can be bought on the spot at gun shows without background checks. This is an indisputable fact.

I did. I dismissed it because your own argument dismisses itself. "I didn't say that criminals get their firearms from gun shows. I said anyone can buy guns on the spot from gun shows."

Which dismisses your entire argument, right there. If criminals don't get their firearms from gun shows, then you're knowingly projecting a false argument.

Second, if you would read, you would see that the overwhelming majority of transactions conducted at a gun show are done by licensed dealers, who must perform a background check. So, no, even at gun shows, the overwhelming portion of the inventory is held by licensed distributors who will perform a background check.

2. You are wrong. Straw Purchasing of firearms is illegal by law (having someone else buy the gun for you).

Again, if you would read, you would see this is not the case for the overwhelming majority of firearms used in a crime. The average age of a firearm used in crime is 11 years old. These are not straw purchases and represent the exchange of firearms from person to person.

3. The topic is school shootings which is primarily done by students who have easy access to firearms. Why are you bringing other criminals into this?

Also, students who apparently have easy access to explosives and who are given special passage by the FBI.

4. Educate yourself a little:

You must be registered for see links

"An ATF study of 1,530 gun trafficking cases determined that straw purchasers were involved in almost one-half (46%) of the investigations, and were associated with nearly 26,000 illegally trafficked firearms

A 2007 study found that straw purchases were significantly more common at gun shows in states with little regulation (Arizona, Florida, Nevada and Texas) than at gun shows in California, which regulates gun shows and requires background checks for all firearm transfers."

Self-dismissing. We are talking about school children who have access to firearms and explosives. You are also trying to point out an already illegal practice. Further, the rate of estimated straw purchases is not substantially affected by surrounding gun laws. Gun sales, in general, are lower in states like California compared to states with less regulation, and gun crime is higher in states with higher gun regulation than in states without it - ironically enough - even though the proportional rate of straw sales is estimated to be roughly similar among them all.

Now, if you would read, that is discussing straw-purchasing of firearms for the purposes of illegally trafficking firearms. If I am purchasing a firearm from a gun show or from a gun retailer for the purposes of selling to another person or trafficking for sale - then, guess what - that's already a crime.

In fact, it should be relatively easy to spot straw purchasers for investigation by the ATF. Individuals who regularly apply for background checks from multiple points of sale are suspect. These can then be subpoenaed for sales records. Individuals purchasing the same model of handgun or rifle, repeatedly, are suspicious, as well as people who have seemingly little or no source of income to purchase such firearms.

One must, then, wonder, why it is that these systems - put in place to prevent such things - are not being used to enforce the laws we already have.

So yeah, your entire wall of text was literally about nothing that I was talking about.

It certainly helps, when the only argument you ever have is "you aren't talking about what I am talking about" - to never really be talking about anything in the first place.

 

[Lightbringer]

I did. I dismissed it because your own argument dismisses itself. "I didn't say that criminals get their firearms from gun shows. I said anyone can buy guns on the spot from gun shows."

Which dismisses your entire argument, right there. If criminals don't get their firearms from gun shows, then you're knowingly projecting a false argument.

Second, if you would read, you would see that the overwhelming majority of transactions conducted at a gun show are done by licensed dealers, who must perform a background check. So, no, even at gun shows, the overwhelming portion of the inventory is held by licensed distributors who will perform a background check.

@Bold: I didn't even say that. You literally just put those words in my mouth.

Again. Did you read my comment? Because I never argued what percentage of people get guns from gun shows.

All I said was that guns can be bought without a background check. You attached a faux argument on my behalf and then tried to argue a topic I wasn't even discussing in the first place.

Again, if you would read, you would see this is not the case for the overwhelming majority of firearms used in a crime. The average age of a firearm used in crime is 11 years old. These are not straw purchases and represent the exchange of firearms from person to person.

You're creating a red herring. You said that straw purchases were legal. I corrected you and an instead of admitting to being wrong, you're now creating a separate debate about how most gun crimes are crimes are committed by 11 year olds.

Dude, you're a shit debater.

Also, students who apparently have easy access to explosives and who are given special passage by the FBI.

Not even part of the topic. I'm not debating conspiracy with you.

Self-dismissing. We are talking about school children who have access to firearms and explosives. You are also trying to point out an already illegal practice. Further, the rate of estimated straw purchases is not substantially affected by surrounding gun laws. Gun sales, in general, are lower in states like California compared to states with less regulation, and gun crime is higher in states with higher gun regulation than in states without it - ironically enough - even though the proportional rate of straw sales is estimated to be roughly similar among them all.

Now, if you would read, that is discussing straw-purchasing of firearms for the purposes of illegally trafficking firearms. If I am purchasing a firearm from a gun show or from a gun retailer for the purposes of selling to another person or trafficking for sale - then, guess what - that's already a crime.

In fact, it should be relatively easy to spot straw purchasers for investigation by the ATF. Individuals who regularly apply for background checks from multiple points of sale are suspect. These can then be subpoenaed for sales records. Individuals purchasing the same model of handgun or rifle, repeatedly, are suspicious, as well as people who have seemingly little or no source of income to purchase such firearms.


One must, then, wonder, why it is that these systems - put in place to prevent such things - are not being used to enforce the laws we already have.

You seriously love to change what you were previously arguing. I just enlightened you with a statistic on the how straw-purchases and gun shows add to the influx of unlicensed guns, which is something you brought up. Sit down and quite changing the subject.

It certainly helps, when the only argument you ever have is "you aren't talking about what I am talking about" - to never really be talking about anything in the first place.

Because you're not. You're over here putting words into my mouth and then arguing what you just said that I said with novel-length texts.

And every time I challenge you and put an irrefutable statistic or clarify my statement, you change the subject and dismiss what I said. You're done.

 

[minamoto]

@Bold: I didn't even say that. You literally just put those words in my mouth.

Again. Did you read my comment? Because I never argued what percentage of people get guns from gun shows.

All I said was that guns can be bought without a background check. You attached a faux argument on my behalf and then tried to argue a topic I wasn't even discussing in the first place.




You're creating a red herring. You said that straw purchases were legal. I corrected you and an instead of admitting to being wrong, you're now creating a separate debate about how most gun crimes are crimes are committed by 11 year olds.

Dude, you're a shit debater.





Not even part of the topic. I'm not debating conspiracy with you.




You seriously love to change what you were previously arguing. I just enlightened you with a statistic on the how straw-purchases and gun shows add to the influx of unlicensed guns, which is something you brought up. Sit down and quite changing the subject.







Because you're not. You're over here putting words into my mouth and then arguing what you just said that I said with novel-length texts.

And every time I challenge you and put an irrefutable statistic or clarify my statement, you change the subject and dismiss what I said. You're done.

can i ask u ???..r u from usa???..

 

[Aim64C]

@Bold: I didn't even say that. You literally just put those words in my mouth.

Context is a wonderful thing.

Again. Did you read my comment? Because I never argued what percentage of people get guns from gun shows.

Then why are you bringing it up?

All I said was that guns can be bought without a background check. You attached a faux argument on my behalf and then tried to argue a topic I wasn't even discussing in the first place.

Then why did you bring up gun shows?

You're creating a red herring. You said that straw purchases were legal. I corrected you and an instead of admitting to being wrong, you're now creating a separate debate about how most gun crimes are crimes are committed by 11 year olds.

Straw purchases are illegal. Buying a gun for the purpose of turning around and selling that gun to another individual who is prohibited under law from purchasing a firearm is illegal. That is a straw purchase. Transfers of firearms are not illegal under federal law, provided the individual transferring ownership has no reason to believe the individual would not be allowed to legally purchase a firearm. So, in the gang example, some members would be able to pass a background check, others would not - and the water becomes murky due to case-by-case basis, but in general, private transactions are not crimes.

Also, if you would, again, read - most firearms used in crimes are 11 years old. Do try to pay attention.

Dude, you're a shit debater.

Oh... I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were actually putting forth effort. I suppose it is only fair for me to meet you with equal effort. So, from my next post on, I will be serious.

Not even part of the topic. I'm not debating conspiracy with you.

I thought the question was where the kids get their firearms from. Since they, also, seem to have access to explosives, it seems relevant to consider the idea these people are acting with 'expanded access' relative to most other firearms owners.

You seriously love to change what you were previously arguing. I just enlightened you with a statistic on the how straw-purchases and gun shows add to the influx of unlicensed guns, which is something you brought up. Sit down and quite changing the subject.

You haven't really addressed the key issue of where the firearms for these school shootings comes from. You've merely pointed to straw purchases and then tried to invoke the gun show loophole. Problem is, the gun show loophole - which doesn't exist - has nothing to do with straw purchases. Further, straw purchases have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of school shootings, though they do have more to do with the source of guns used for trafficking in general gun violence - which I have already covered.

Because you're not. You're over here putting words into my mouth and then arguing what you just said that I said with novel-length texts.

It's pretty obvious, by now, that you don't even understand what it is you're trying to say - much less what other people are saying. Quite... quit. Claiming I'm talking about 11 year olds... doesn't even understand how to formulate a coherent argument.

And every time I challenge you and put an irrefutable statistic or clarify my statement, you change the subject and dismiss what I said. You're done.

The problem is that you are using words you don't understand. When someone responds to those words and then makes an argument opposing your conclusions, you then stare in cross-eyed wonder at why it is those people are not responding to what you think you're trying to say.

You've only made one statement onto your point. You have claimed that school shooting perpetrators obtain their firearms from "easy access." What this has to do with gun shows, loopholes thereof, gun trafficking, or straw purchases - you've never actually made the connection.

Which is precisely why I made the series of arguments I did. You were never talking about the school shootings. That is always used as the "invitation to start a conversation..." about the very topics you brought up. So, now that we have those topics out of the way, let's actually discuss the issue of school shootings, shall we?