Quote
Originally posted by: pjstrohI consider myself an expert at pointing out incorrect things that melbewdewey posts. For example, in his most recent post melbedewey concludes and presumptively asks:
Quote
Originally posted by: melbedewey
"Now tell us, rationally and without name-calling, why we should vote for a party that wants to confiscate guns from white and Asian people for crimes committed overwhelmingly by blacks and hispanics?
Why we should vote for a party that refuses to protect us by enacting long mandatory sentences for violent gun offenders because those offenders are their political base? "
I'm not aware of any confiscation bill that would take weapons away from anyone - let alone base that confiscation upon race (how emotional). The most aggressive bill in committee that I am aware of would outlaw the sale of certain weapons which is distinctly different from confiscating them from existing owners. Gun lovers are not unaware of this distinction as noted by the run on many of these weapons already referenced in this thread. Of course, Don Diego or melbedewey can feel free to outline any such bill to confiscate weapons by providing a credible reference below.
One truly ironic fact born out by melbedewey's statisitics is the disproportionate effect background checks would have on the minority populations of African Americans and Hispanics. Since those demographics have a higher correlation of felony convictions they would also then have a higher correlation of denials for weapons purchases under a universal background check law. So when melbedewey suggests (as he often "emoptionally" does) that gun control laws somehow disarm law- abiding white people while arming law-breaking black people ...well, actually the exact oppossitte is true - which makes it kinda funny. He's a funny guy.
Well, see! This is an improvement over Number51's posts requesting folks condemn meldebewy.
__DonDiego is also not aware of a Bill presently under consideration which specifies confiscation of firearms already in the hands of the citizenry. But meldebewy does not reference a Bill; he suggests one Party "wants to confiscate guns". If DonDiego is guessing correctly he suggests that that (unnamed) Party does incorporate many members and even legislators who would like to confiscate all firearms. The present political environment won't permit it.
__DonDiego interprets meldebewy's reference to inappropriate gun confiscation from (presumedly) law-abiding Caucasians and Asians is to differentiate such confiscation from that applicable to felony-prone Blacks and Hispanics (based upon his previously discussed crime statistics) and not to suggest the anticipated confiscation would be "race-based".
__DonDiego agrees with pjstroh that the Bill now under consideration would ban only the manufacture, import, and sale of something, as yet undefined, called an "assault weapon". One man's "assault weapon" is another man's “firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”
__What is the goal of the contemplated bill? To reduce murders? If so, it is badly directed. In 2010 rifles accounted for 358 murders in the USA [n.b. "assault rifles" are a subset of "rifles"]. Handguns accounted for 6009. Ref: The FBI
__Indeed, gun lovers are aware of the distinction between "assault weapons" and other firearms. However. the run on weapons to which pjstroh refers is not limited to the Bill's "assault weapons". Gun enthusiasts are emptying the dealers' shelves of rifles, shotguns, and handguns of every type, . . . except perhaps single-action cowboy revolvers. And most every caliber ammunition is in short supply as well. The gun buyers expect "assault weapons" to be unavailable soon; perhaps they expect everything else they're buying to be unavailable later.
__DonDiego notes that pjstroh has not provided the requested reason why meldebewy should vote for the aforementioned unnamed Party.
__All gun purchases from a dealer already require a background check. Felony convictions already prohibit purchases. [n.b. The Newtown murderer would have been denied a purchase because of mental health issues on record; similarly the Virginia Tech murderer should have been denied his weapon purchase, but the State health records were not forwarded to the FBI as they ought to have been by Law. Governments are often not very efficient.]
__Regardless of the ancestry of those perpetrating a gun-crime or planning to do so, DonDiego opines it is unlikely they have subjected themselves to the required background check or intend to do so. And it is unlikely they will subject themselves to one even if it is mandatory for all gun purchases. Such a legal provision would be impossible to enforce, and the black market would thrive anyway. DonDiego has only a mild philosophical objection to universal background checks, but he proposes they won't be effective against those with bad intentions.
