Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 92      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #91 
pabar - It's unnecessary.  It's simply a hoop to jump through.  You went from why shouldn't people show an ID in order to be able to vote to why shouldn't people show an ID another time in order to vote?  I'm wasting my time debating this subject but at least I'm intellectually honest that somebody somewhere will be stopped from voting when they shouldn't be.  It's just too insignificant to put people to so much trouble.  I wish I could get some of you to be equally as honest that background checks at all gun shows will stop somebody from gaining a weapon which could save someone's life, a far more significant result than a couple people illegally voting.  Your side says every person stopped from a purchase will successfully gain a weapon elsewhere which is totally bogus.  It seems there is no law that can stop criminals from being criminals outside of a voter ID law.  That's an incredible argument.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #92 
Dewey - the problem with your gun control argument is a matter of consequence.  I'll go on record as to say that stricter gun control laws will stop someone from getting a gun.  Do you think the people who perpetrated the crimes at Sandy Hook and Navy Yard would have been stopped by stricter laws?  I say definitely not.  Anyone who is that crazed is not going to let a little thing like a law get in his way.
Softballfanatic

Registered:
Posts: 1,152
Reply with quote  #93 
If I proved who I was to get my ID or drivers license, why do I have to show it again to buy alcohol?
__________________
Jerry Wallace "For The Love Of The Game"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #94 
softballfanatic - The liquor store has no idea you went and got a license.  On the contrary, the polling place now has your name and address right there in the book as a record you registered.  Now if you can show me there are significant numbers of people who can successfully know other names and addresses on this polling place list, are willing to get back into the line a couple of times more, at the risk of a felony charge, to vote in the place of others, then I may sign on and support your voting ID law.  I just don't think such a thing hardly ever happens, especially not to the point where we need to take unnecessary security steps, and the motive behind this is completely clear to most. 
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,056
Reply with quote  #95 

Dewey - From what I've heard, it's not that hard to get a copy of voter rolls.

Softballfanatic

Registered:
Posts: 1,152
Reply with quote  #96 
I know many of my my neighbors. We all have the same polling place. It would not be that hard to do! But then showing the ID at polloing place is not the issue, it is that they are not able to get the requisite ID. Once again, if they cannot get to a place to get an ID, how are they going to get to preventive medical services? They are either capable of travel or they are not.
__________________
Jerry Wallace "For The Love Of The Game"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #97 
softballfanatic - I've agreed already.  Some will not get to the polling place and some will not get to preventive services.  Therefore, some uninsured we subsidize may cost us more than we spend today while many will cost us less, just as many will succeed at voting and some will now go by the wayside.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #98 
Always a cop out line of Bill Smith. Always a Bill Smith reply Dewey. Always a duck and cover and side step. Cower, and be destroyed in 2014.
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #99 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody
Always a cop out line of Bill Smith. Always a Bill Smith reply Dewey. Always a duck and cover and side step. Cower, and be destroyed in 2014.


woody - All you had to say was no, no, and "b" but you couldn't bring yourself to do it. [wink]
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #100 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
Dewey -  I'll go on record as to say that stricter gun control laws will stop someone from getting a gun.  Do you think the people who perpetrated the crimes at Sandy Hook and Navy Yard would have been stopped by stricter laws?  I say definitely not.  Anyone who is that crazed is not going to let a little thing like a law get in his way.


pabar - Thanks, I meant to respond to your post earlier and I didn't get around to it.  First off, I'm relieved to hear somebody from the Right finally agree that background checks can and do stop some purchasers from obtaining a weapon.  In return, based on all the information we know, I'll completely agree with you that no background check laws would have stopped the Sandy Hook or the Naval Yard shootings.  This is probably true with many other shootings as well. 

However, the point I'm pushing is that we have surely stopped other Sandy Hook or Naval Yard type shootings thanks to our background check laws.  Additionally, I think there can be no doubt that we have some folks out there who have not been shot and killed thanks to the laws that check the background of gun buyers.  I don't know how others can disagree that somewhere out there a person was denied a gun purchase, after failing a background check, and then cooled off, changed their mind, or met a fateful demise during their attempt to buy their weapon elsewhere, be it in the inner city, suburbs, black market, or wherever.  It's pure common sense to me and, for the life of me, I can't understand why the two sides have chosen this particular law to wage a fight over.  While we have many shootings that can easily be analyzed to realize a background check would have been of no help, it should also be obvious we have avoided many other massacres, with no analysis possible.  I continue to ask how this last fact can be denied by anyone, Right or Left, and how in the world can background checks of gun buyers remain controversial?
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #101 
There is no way of knowing if background checks have ever stopped a massacre or ever will stop a massacre.  It can only be supposition.  I'm not sure anyone disagrees with background checks.  I think people who believe in the 2nd Amendment get nervous when people want to ban certain types of weapons.  That starts a slippery slope.  Just like abortion.  Nobody in their right mind should oppose a partial birth abortion ban (except for the obvious life in danger issues).  But some people on the pro-choice side do oppose it for the same slippery slope logic.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #102 
This Navy shooter passed background checks.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #103 
Wonder if the Chicago shooters passed background checks??
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #104 
And that is the reality.  Those that really want to do harm will be able to even if all guns are banned in the United States.  Will some be stopped?  Yes, but not nearly enough to make us all wonder why another senseless tragedy happened.  Taking that hypothetical to the next level, if all guns are banned and a maniac mows down a bunch of people with a gun, how will our legislators react then?  What will they do then?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #105 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
There is no way of knowing if background checks have ever stopped a massacre or ever will stop a massacre.  It can only be supposition.  I'm not sure anyone disagrees with background checks. 


My interaction with many inside here convince me your last sentence is not necessarily true.  With regards to supposition, would it be your best guess we have stopped somebody, somewhere, sometime from buying a gun he/she intended to use to kill people?  Some supposition is not that hard to make.  We have laws in many States requiring guns in the home to be securely stored.  I think it's safe to say, but can never be proved as you noted, that such a law has prevented a child from killing himself/herself or another.  We can't know that a child of a parent, who keeps their gun locked up, would have ever considered bothering that gun if it weren't locked up.  However, I think we can make an educated, and relatively confident, supposition that there are probably some children out there who may have handled a gun unsecured.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #106 
Dewey - your supposition can be applied to almost any situation in order to support an argument.  Is it possible that had we left a religious cross on some piece of public property that was removed because of a complaint by an atheist, that a person who went on to commit a crime might have instead seen the cross, become inspired by the cross and choose a different path rather than the crime-ridden one they did choose?  Yes, I think using your logic we can assume that could easily have happened.  So shouldn't we publicly display as many religious symbols as possible in order to try to prevent crime?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #107 
pabar - I don't understand why you can't stay on this one subject and provide our readers with your opinion as to why we can't be confident that background checks likely have prevented a tragedy somewhere sometime?  Lots of things we can't prove for 100% certain, like whether the child of a responsible parent who locks guns up would ever touch the gun if it weren't locked up, but we can surmise.  Why are you refusing to say "yes, it's fair to say background checks have likely stopped somebody from killing others at one time or another?"
Softballfanatic

Registered:
Posts: 1,152
Reply with quote  #108 
I would not go so far as to agree with your statement. It goes a little too far. I would say that backgrounds checks have likely prevented someone who did not meet the requirements of the background check from purchasing a gun at that particular place and time. Now, I will not say that it prevented them from acquiring a gun. It simply made them jump through a hoop which they could not do. So now they know what they have to do. Acquirte a gun through another means. Now with that also said, most who cannot pass a background check, know in advance that they cannot do so, therefore they do not make such an attempt and seek to acquire their desired gun through another means without a background check. How's that for supposition?
__________________
Jerry Wallace "For The Love Of The Game"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #109 
softballfanatic - If you have been following our exchange, I'm suggesting at least one of those who failed to purchase a gun, failed to buy one elsewhere.  Maybe they changed their mind, maybe they couldn't find where to buy another gun, or maybe they were robbed and killed during the transaction.  Is any of this possible in your mind?  If so, then you must agree background checks have prevented somebody somewhere from obtaining a weapon.  Pabar at least gave in on this probability.

Finally, I think there are records on those who have been denied via background check and the numbers are quite high.
Softballfanatic

Registered:
Posts: 1,152
Reply with quote  #110 
Dewey--I do not deny that it is possible, I just will not say probable as you are. Goodness sake, they could die of a heart attack after the background check denial. THey could die in a car wreck on their way to make a black market purchase. Certainly it is possible! I also do not deny that their is a good number of people who have failed background checks. How many of them were seeking to purchase with ill intent in mind? How many had no idea that something in their background would cause them to fail a background check and their purchase was intended for legitimate purposes? (That may be a stretch for many liberals) Since we are delving into supposition, is it more likely or not that a criminal or individual wishing to acquire a gun would do so in a manner that does not subject them to a background check?
__________________
Jerry Wallace "For The Love Of The Game"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #111 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Softballfanatic
Dewey-Since we are delving into supposition, is it more likely or not that a criminal or individual wishing to acquire a gun would do so in a manner that does not subject them to a background check?


Agreed, it is more likely.  I'm simply trying to make the point that from over 100,000 denials annually, we can't deny that somewhere, on some occasion, a tragedy was likely averted.  I think common sense bears this out.  Argue background checks may be more intrusive than you want to go but please don't tell readers denying a weapon sale will never stop any potential tragedy.  Please don't suggest everyone failing a purchase automatically gets a gun elsewhere.  Heck, some are even arrested.
Softballfanatic

Registered:
Posts: 1,152
Reply with quote  #112 
I don't think I did any of those things. I said it was possible.
__________________
Jerry Wallace "For The Love Of The Game"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #113 
softballfanatic - I'm not saying you "you".  I'm talking about the general debate.  That said, you could come out and say it is likely that a failed background check that denied a purchase has prevented a killing sometime in our history. [wink]
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #114 
likely and possible are very different things.

it's possible that Obama will wake up from whatever coma he's been in the past five years, and propose an economic plan that actually gets this country moving by abandoning some of his big government philosophy.  it's not likely, but almost anything is possible.
Softballfanatic

Registered:
Posts: 1,152
Reply with quote  #115 
What mikec said! [cool]
__________________
Jerry Wallace "For The Love Of The Game"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #116 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
likely and possible are very different things.



Precisely!  That's why I'm trying to get a response that says it's "likely" we've prevented a tragedy, sometime in the vast history of our Country, thanks to a background check stopping a gun purchase.  Think I'll ever succeed in getting somebody in this forum to say it this clearly? 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #117 
Dewey - sorry I didn't conform to the conversation that you wanted but I think it's important to show how your argument, while valid, is hardly convincing.  You're trying to make a cause and effect case that is incredibly broad and somewhat obvious.  I don't think that helps your argument at all and my parallel was meant to prove that.
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 5,078
Reply with quote  #118 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
pabar - I don't understand why you can't stay on this one subject


That's a humdinger right there.

__________________
#SCOTUS
YAY!!is GAF
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #119 
pabar - I may not be the sharpest crayon in the box but I'm smart enough to know that sometime in our past, an angry man failed to kill his wife, his neighbors, or his co-workers because he was unable to get his hand on a weapon.  Possible?  Of course.  Likely?  Yes.  In fact, I'll go as far as saying it's a certainty yet I'm unable to prove it.  The problem with this debate is if you are against background checks, including each and every gun show sale, opponents are not allowed to admit stopping a sale ever prevented a tragedy and they are not allowed to agree to a "likelihood" a tragedy has ever been thwarted thanks to background check stopping a purchase. I think I've pressed the issue enough that rational readers can see this for themselves and I hope they absorb the extent the Right will sometimes go in these various political debates.  We should take a poll and ask who thinks it's ever happened where a man went to buy a weapon, was denied, couldn't find where do get one, and never killed his intended victims?  Probably 1000-1 that it has happened.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #120 
Btw, if we ever do pass a law in this Country banning abortion, it will not stop one abortion from taking place.  Women searching out an abortion will simply find a crooked doctor, or some other way, to accomplish their goal.  Indeed, there is no way anyone can prove that one abortion will be stopped.  (To our readers, please know I don't believe this for a minute).
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.