LGP Political Discussion Thread

[MRandall25]

Although, with what MWB is saying, the better public schools are generally in areas where you have to pay a slightly higher tax than you would in a district that isn't as "good".

[MWB]

Although, with what MWB is saying, the better public schools are generally in areas where you have to pay a slightly higher tax than you would in a district that isn't as "good".

I think that's dependent on the state. Pretty accurate for PA, not in NC though.

[Shyster]

You pointed out the problem. Think all criminals who do that actually buy guns in Pennsylvania? Why would a crazy guy go buy there, when he can go to a private sale in another state (or an internet store from what I'm reading lately) and buy a gun without a check and without anyone knowing? There needs to be a country-wide federal law on that to tighten things up in this regard, and that includes the FBI sniffing out illegal gun sales on the web.

I wanted to circle back to these statements. Going to another state to buy a gun via private purchase is already illegal under federal law. Buying a gun over the internet from a private seller without using a licensed gun shop as an intermediary and going through all of the background checks is also illegal. It’s also illegal:

- To buy a handgun across state lines (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3));

- To buy a rifle or shotgun across state lines unless (1) the purchase is from a licensed gun shop and (2) the sale, delivery, and receipt fully complies with the legal conditions of sale of both states involved (18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3));

- To sell a gun to someone that you know or have reasonable cause to believe does not reside in your state (§ 922(a)(5));

- To make any false statements to a licensed gun shop or to furnish or exhibit any false identification intended to deceive a licensed gun shop (§ 922(a)(6));

- For any person to sell a gun to someone when they know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is a convicted criminal, a fugitive from justice, a drug user, has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien, has been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, is subject to a restraining order, or has been convicted of any crime of domestic violence (§ 922(d));

- To ship, transport, possess, or own a gun when you are a convicted criminal, a fugitive from justice, a drug user, have been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien, have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, are under a restraining order, or have been convicted of any crime of domestic violence (§ 922(g));

- To transport, ship, receive, possess, conceal, store, sell, or dispose of any firearm or ammunition you know or have reasonable cause to believe is stolen (§ 922(i) and (j));

- To transport or possess any firearm with an obliterated serial number (§ 922(k));

- With certain exceptions (e.g., lawful hunting; under the supervision of parents), for any juvenile to possess a gun and for anyone to sell guns or ammunition to a juvenile (§ 922(x)).

Penalties for these crimes range from one year in prison at the low end to 20 to 30 years at the high end. If some of these crimes were committed in connection with a murder, the penalty increases to life imprisonment or the death penalty.

[Pitt87]

Regarding parents: kids that have parents who care are in the best shape. Could be a single parent, two working parents, traditional, two guys.... Just a lot harder for a single parent since they are the only one.

I never noticed much of a difference between kids with two parents that worked or had someone at home. Caring is the key component; plenty of parents that are home and still don't care. Not sure what the statistics would say, but for boys... a dad is a sign that a kid has a shot. If a boy has no father in his life... prepare for the worst.

[shafnutz05]

So much for "90% of people want this"

Exactly. You can't just throw around numbers like that in a debate.

[doublem]

Regarding parents: kids that have parents who care are in the best shape. Could be a single parent, two working parents, traditional, two guys.... Just a lot harder for a single parent since they are the only one.

I never noticed much of a difference between kids with two parents that worked or had someone at home. Caring is the key component; plenty of parents that are home and still don't care. Not sure what the statistics would say, but for boys... a dad is a sign that a kid has a shot. If a boy has no father in his life... prepare for the worst.

where does that idea come from?

[Gaucho]

A good friend of mine grew up without a father and turned out gay, so there.

[PensFanInDC]

Regarding parents: kids that have parents who care are in the best shape. Could be a single parent, two working parents, traditional, two guys.... Just a lot harder for a single parent since they are the only one.

I never noticed much of a difference between kids with two parents that worked or had someone at home. Caring is the key component; plenty of parents that are home and still don't care. Not sure what the statistics would say, but for boys... a dad is a sign that a kid has a shot. If a boy has no father in his life... prepare for the worst.

where does that idea come from?

Statistics.

A boy who grows up without a father is, by no means, destined for failure. Not in the least. Statistics happen to show that it is more likely is all. All boys deserve a strong male role model in their life.

[MWB]

Just to add a little to the above...
I bet you would find a very strong correlation between unsuccessful boys who grew up without a father and unsuccessful boys who grew up without a father and also have a mother who cares more about herself. Having a strong male role model is good (as is having a strong female role model), but lacking one can be overcome if the rest of your situation is good.

[PensFanInDC]

Just to add a little to the above...
I bet you would find a very strong correlation between unsuccessful boys who grew up without a father and unsuccessful boys who grew up without a father and also have a mother who cares more about herself. Having a strong male role model is good (as is having a strong female role model), but lacking one can be overcome if the rest of your situation is good.

Yeah I was trying to word this in my above post but couldnt come up with the right way to say it. A single mother can certainly do the job.

[Dickie Dunn]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/cocaine/drug-refund-911-call-765902

So how many times do you have to be arrested before you stop receiving my tax dollars, which you have very publically stated that you use to help fuel your drug habits?

[Pitt87]

Regarding parents: kids that have parents who care are in the best shape. Could be a single parent, two working parents, traditional, two guys.... Just a lot harder for a single parent since they are the only one.

I never noticed much of a difference between kids with two parents that worked or had someone at home. Caring is the key component; plenty of parents that are home and still don't care. Not sure what the statistics would say, but for boys... a dad is a sign that a kid has a shot. If a boy has no father in his life... prepare for the worst.

where does that idea come from?

Statistics.

A boy who grows up without a father is, by no means, destined for failure. Not in the least. Statistics happen to show that it is more likely is all. All boys deserve a strong male role model in their life.

Its more significant than "statistics happen to show". Have you ever studied youth psych profiles? There are stats to support it, but profiles for many behavioral & social disorders begin with a fatherless home situation, and generally include an inferiority complex (i.e. unfounded hatred) coupled with a deep-seeded inability to comply with rule or law (i.e. tendency toward extreme escalation).

The incidence of violent behavior is probably low, so you're correct probably right that its not a 'destined for failure' situation, but the consistency in the profile for violent and extreme behavior and social disorders is significant.

But, since you raise the statistics -- and even seek to dismiss them a bit -- here are a few: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201106/the-decline-fatherhood-and-the-male-identity-crisis

The incidence of social & behavioral disorders are more than statistically relevant. Half of all children living with a single mother live in poverty. The majority of sexual abuses are committed against fatherless children. Rates of teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, high school drop outs are higher... 90% of all homelessness people come from homes without fathers. 85% of all people that demonstrate behavioral disorders are from fatherless homes. 72% of murderers, 60% of rapists, 63% of youth suicides came from homes without a father.

[PensFanInDC]

Not sure how I dismissed statistics in my post especially since what I said is backed up by the stats you posted...

[Sarcastic]

You pointed out the problem. Think all criminals who do that actually buy guns in Pennsylvania? Why would a crazy guy go buy there, when he can go to a private sale in another state (or an internet store from what I'm reading lately) and buy a gun without a check and without anyone knowing? There needs to be a country-wide federal law on that to tighten things up in this regard, and that includes the FBI sniffing out illegal gun sales on the web.

I wanted to circle back to these statements. Going to another state to buy a gun via private purchase is already illegal under federal law. Buying a gun over the internet from a private seller without using a licensed gun shop as an intermediary and going through all of the background checks is also illegal. It’s also illegal:

- To buy a handgun across state lines (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3));

- To buy a rifle or shotgun across state lines unless (1) the purchase is from a licensed gun shop and (2) the sale, delivery, and receipt fully complies with the legal conditions of sale of both states involved (18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3));

- To sell a gun to someone that you know or have reasonable cause to believe does not reside in your state (§ 922(a)(5));

- To make any false statements to a licensed gun shop or to furnish or exhibit any false identification intended to deceive a licensed gun shop (§ 922(a)(6));

- For any person to sell a gun to someone when they know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is a convicted criminal, a fugitive from justice, a drug user, has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien, has been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, is subject to a restraining order, or has been convicted of any crime of domestic violence (§ 922(d));

- To ship, transport, possess, or own a gun when you are a convicted criminal, a fugitive from justice, a drug user, have been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien, have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, are under a restraining order, or have been convicted of any crime of domestic violence (§ 922(g));

- To transport, ship, receive, possess, conceal, store, sell, or dispose of any firearm or ammunition you know or have reasonable cause to believe is stolen (§ 922(i) and (j));

- To transport or possess any firearm with an obliterated serial number (§ 922(k));

- With certain exceptions (e.g., lawful hunting; under the supervision of parents), for any juvenile to possess a gun and for anyone to sell guns or ammunition to a juvenile (§ 922(x)).

Penalties for these crimes range from one year in prison at the low end to 20 to 30 years at the high end. If some of these crimes were committed in connection with a murder, the penalty increases to life imprisonment or the death penalty.

I'm really tired of all political talk. But to what you wrote...

Going to another state to buy a gun via private purchase is already illegal under federal law.

And yet it happens because those sales happen and it will continute unless private sales and some of those gun shows are either banned or something else... I don't know. Some cops standing around during each show (never been to one) and doing a quick record of each sale and maybe a quick check into a seller before a more detailed evaluation. You can't tell me that you're OK with people being able to give/sell their guns to friends or family members either, as they were talking about on TV the other day.

Buying a gun over the internet from a private seller without using a licensed gun shop as an intermediary and going through all of the background checks is also illegal.

And yet it happens because the authorities aren't diligent enough in finding and prosecuting the sellers. This whole gun issue is starting to annoy me because I don't see any reason for more control and kept data to be such a bad idea.

[MRandall25]

And yet it happens because those sales happen and it will continute unless private sales and some of those gun shows are either banned or something else

They are already banned. That's what it means to be illegal.

[DelPen]

You pointed out the problem. Think all criminals who do that actually buy guns in Pennsylvania? Why would a crazy guy go buy there, when he can go to a private sale in another state (or an internet store from what I'm reading lately) and buy a gun without a check and without anyone knowing? There needs to be a country-wide federal law on that to tighten things up in this regard, and that includes the FBI sniffing out illegal gun sales on the web.

I wanted to circle back to these statements. Going to another state to buy a gun via private purchase is already illegal under federal law. Buying a gun over the internet from a private seller without using a licensed gun shop as an intermediary and going through all of the background checks is also illegal. It’s also illegal:

- To buy a handgun across state lines (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3));

- To buy a rifle or shotgun across state lines unless (1) the purchase is from a licensed gun shop and (2) the sale, delivery, and receipt fully complies with the legal conditions of sale of both states involved (18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3));

- To sell a gun to someone that you know or have reasonable cause to believe does not reside in your state (§ 922(a)(5));

- To make any false statements to a licensed gun shop or to furnish or exhibit any false identification intended to deceive a licensed gun shop (§ 922(a)(6));

- For any person to sell a gun to someone when they know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is a convicted criminal, a fugitive from justice, a drug user, has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien, has been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, is subject to a restraining order, or has been convicted of any crime of domestic violence (§ 922(d));

- To ship, transport, possess, or own a gun when you are a convicted criminal, a fugitive from justice, a drug user, have been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien, have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, are under a restraining order, or have been convicted of any crime of domestic violence (§ 922(g));

- To transport, ship, receive, possess, conceal, store, sell, or dispose of any firearm or ammunition you know or have reasonable cause to believe is stolen (§ 922(i) and (j));

- To transport or possess any firearm with an obliterated serial number (§ 922(k));

- With certain exceptions (e.g., lawful hunting; under the supervision of parents), for any juvenile to possess a gun and for anyone to sell guns or ammunition to a juvenile (§ 922(x)).

Penalties for these crimes range from one year in prison at the low end to 20 to 30 years at the high end. If some of these crimes were committed in connection with a murder, the penalty increases to life imprisonment or the death penalty.

I'm really tired of all political talk. But to what you wrote...

Going to another state to buy a gun via private purchase is already illegal under federal law.

And yet it happens because those sales happen and it will continute unless private sales and some of those gun shows are either banned or something else... I don't know. Some cops standing around during each show (never been to one) and doing a quick record of each sale and maybe a quick check into a seller before a more detailed evaluation. You can't tell me that you're OK with people being able to give/sell their guns to friends or family members either, as they were talking about on TV the other day.

Buying a gun over the internet from a private seller without using a licensed gun shop as an intermediary and going through all of the background checks is also illegal.

And yet it happens because the authorities aren't diligent enough in finding and prosecuting the sellers. This whole gun issue is starting to annoy me because I don't see any reason for more control and kept data to be such a bad idea.

So ban already illegal sales and make them...illegal?

[Sarcastic]

And yet it happens because those sales happen and it will continute unless private sales and some of those gun shows are either banned or something else

They are already banned. That's what it means to be illegal.

Did I miss something and there is a federal law that all gun shows across the US and all private sales are banned now, including sales between family members?

[MRandall25]

And yet it happens because those sales happen and it will continute unless private sales and some of those gun shows are either banned or something else

They are already banned. That's what it means to be illegal.

Did I miss something and there is a federal law that all gun shows across the US and all private sales are banned now, including sales between family members?

No, but you're missing (or seem to be missing) the part where private sales without a background check are banned.

You've been conveniently ignoring stuff like this since Newtown.

[Sarcastic]

The UK banned pretty much all private gun ownership in the late 90s. In Australia, handguns were banned in around 2002 in a measure that included a buy-back program. In both cases, there have been marked declines in gun related incidents and crimes. Whether that's causal or relational is difficult to tell, because - as has been the case here in the U.S. - crime rates in general had been on a roughly 25-year decline. In fact, the suicide rate in the U.S. has fallen faster over this period than it has in Oz. So I'm not sure how significant a data point this really is.

Even in the best of circumstances I'm honestly not really sure how instructive a statistic like that can be. Fewer guns, fewer gun crimes. That's not overly difficult to intuit. But at what price? In virtually all other measure of violent crime the per capita rates in both countries skyrocketd after those respective pieces of legislation went into effect. And in Oz, there was a pronounced increase in the number of violent incidents involving bladed weapons. And I'm not talking small increases here; in Oz, the violent crime rate has practically doubled over the last ten years, and in Britain it is now more common for a home robbery to take place when the owners are at home than it is in an unoccupied residence.

So it becomes a game of risk-reward. Do you want to lower the risk of murder even further in a state where that risk was already pretty low, if lowering that risk means sharply increasing your risk of being the victim of a violent crime? (Which is statistically much more likely, anyway; there are more muggings than murders.)

I'm too lazy to look up Australia but according to wiki, guns are still available to own in the UK and the measures taken have resulted in a pretty great result:

The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. There were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010, compared to the 3.0 in the United States (over 40 times higher) and 0.21 in Germany (3x higher).[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... ed_Kingdom

I read previously that other forms of crime are higher there than here, but that's a different issue isn't it? We are talking about lowering the amount of shootings and gun violence. If England has an issue with other forms of crime, maybe they can push for higher sentences in such crimes. I don't believe that we have less burglaries here because some dumbass is afraid the victim who's in his bed passed out sleeping has a weapon somewhere.

Crime has been declining in the US, true, yet a very deep study I read discovered that the amount of shootings not resulting in death remained the same over a number of years now. Deaths are down, which is a positive, but maybe due to better medical response.

As you can see from the pretty bar graphs, the vast, VAST majority of gun murders are committed by a demographic that makes up 12% of the population. Rather than look at stricter gun controls as the answer, maybe we should ask why black Americans simply can't stop killing each other? Because in my opinion, there is no question that addressing the astronomically higher murder rate among black Americans is probably a lot more relevant as to addressing the issue of murder in the United States.

That is definitely an issue that has to be looked at sometime.

[MRandall25]

I read previously that other forms of crime are higher there than here, but that's a different issue isn't it? We are talking about lowering the amount of shootings and gun violence. If England has an issue with other forms of crime, maybe they can push for higher sentences in such crimes. I don't believe that we have less burglaries here because some dumbass is afraid the victim who's in his bed passed out sleeping has a weapon somewhere.

No, it's not a different issue. Other types of violent crime went up when gun ownership went down. You can't sit here and say "WE NEED TO STOP GUN VIOLENCE!!!", then conveniently ignore other types of violence that arise when there aren't guns. Seems kind of hypocritical, no?

And I'd wager the fact that the US has lower numbers of burglaries/home invasions than countries who have bans on guns is pretty strong evidence that getting shot by the home owner is a deterrent in the US. Again, you're conveniently ignoring facts because it doesn't agree with your agenda.

[Sarcastic]

And yet it happens because those sales happen and it will continute unless private sales and some of those gun shows are either banned or something else

They are already banned. That's what it means to be illegal.

Did I miss something and there is a federal law that all gun shows across the US and all private sales are banned now, including sales between family members?

No, but you're missing (or seem to be missing) the part where private sales without a background check are banned.

You've been conveniently ignoring stuff like this since Newtown.

What about firearm transfer between family members?

The bulk of the problem remains how easily it is to buy a gun at a gun sale without a background check anyway. I say raid those events or outright ban them. Or at the very least, have a bunch of cops participate and check every single detail of each transaction.

[MRandall25]

We've already gone over that Sarcastic. You can't buy a gun from a vendor at a gun show without a background check.

[Sarcastic]

I read previously that other forms of crime are higher there than here, but that's a different issue isn't it? We are talking about lowering the amount of shootings and gun violence. If England has an issue with other forms of crime, maybe they can push for higher sentences in such crimes. I don't believe that we have less burglaries here because some dumbass is afraid the victim who's in his bed passed out sleeping has a weapon somewhere.

No, it's not a different issue. Other types of violent crime went up when gun ownership went down. You can't sit here and say "WE NEED TO STOP GUN VIOLENCE!!!", then conveniently ignore other types of violence that arise when there aren't guns. Seems kind of hypocritical, no?

And I'd wager the fact that the US has lower numbers of burglaries/home invasions than countries who have bans on guns is pretty strong evidence that getting shot by the home owner is a deterrent in the US. Again, you're conveniently ignoring facts because it doesn't agree with your agenda.

It is a different issue. Maybe that stuff resulted from decreased amount of guns, maybe not, but it's a good tradeoff anyway. I don't see how someone can compare a gun murder to a burglary.

I don't think it's much of a deterrent. I think that's a pretty silly suggestion, to be honest. A burglar can wait till the owner leaves, for one.

I don't have any agenda and I wish you stopped getting personal in these talks.

[columbia]

How about if you meet up with the vendor after the gun show?
I'm asking because I don't know the answer.

[Sarcastic]

We've already gone over that Sarcastic. You can't buy a gun from a vendor at a gun show without a background check.

Why don't you read up the tens of articles on this particular issue, including about three I posted a few months ago. You're 100% wrong.