I know. Road rage defendants never claim "self defense", unlike the other two

(And ironic that the folks who set such an absurdly low bar for lethal violence most likely think of themselves as "pro-life". What a joke

“(And ironic that the folks who set such an absurdly low bar for lethal violence most likely think of themselves as "pro-life". What a joke”

Ironic how one sided the application of the forum rules regarding attacks against groups are. What a joke how this guy is allowed to insult and attack everything he doesn’t agree with without repercussion.

According to FBI statistics, 61% of burglars encountered while people were home were unarmed, and only 25% were victims of any violent crimes, but three wittiest of those were by family members or acquaintances. Setting aside that lax gun laws make it far easier for criminals to get guns (after all background checks don't affect the ability of law abiding people to get guns, so opponents of background checks are basically the lobby for criminals and terrorists), only a small fraction of burglaries involve any threat to the homeowners but the gun yahoos want to shoot hundreds of thousands of people a year

Nice

"so opponents of background checks are basically the lobby for criminals and terrorists), "

Dumbest statement ever.

Background checks are already in place for a large amount of guns sales. How well is that keeping guns out of the hands of gang bangers?

FYI the number of background checks in 2015 was just over 23M, but idiots still think there are no background checks done for gun sales.

Here is a hint for you. Not very well.

"only a small fraction of burglaries involve any threat to the homeowners but the gun yahoos want to shoot hundreds of thousands of people a year"

So the 39% of burglars encountered while people are home who ARE armed is only a small fraction???

LOL!!!!!

The hypocrisy continues.

The amount of legally owned guns used in crimes is a number far less than 39% but that needs to be made to 0% while letting the armed criminals run free.

"(after all background checks don't affect the ability of law abiding people to get guns, so opponents of background checks are basically the lobby for criminals and terrorists)"

Do you sincerely believe this?

If you do, why are you talking to us at all? If you truly believe that we are morally bankrupt enough to act as a lobby for criminals and terrorists, then you should know that talking to us is useless.

@""so opponents of background checks are basically the lobby for criminals and terrorists), "

Dumbest statement ever.

Background checks are already in place for a large amount of guns sales. How well is that keeping guns out of the hands of gang bangers? "

So you want it to be 100% effective or its not worth trying?

Cause i can see who is competing for dumbest statements...

What does background checks being 100% effective have to do with being the lobby for criminals and terrorists?

Nothing?

Good talk.

Because you can't comprehend that criminals are able to get guns illegally you have strawman every argument?

Perhaps start a thread about getting the guns out of the hands of the gang bangers and criminals and there will be much more agreement than a bunch of out of touch with reality elitists pushing an agenda to punish legal, law abiding citizens.

I mean no one’s actually reading anyone else’s arguments so I think it would be just as effective as this thread.

Well it seems that those on the left think that if you put in more background checks (cause apparently they are oblivious to the fact they already exist and being done in the tens of millions per year) that the gangbangers and criminals are suddenly going to head down to Bass Pro Shops to do their gun shopping and give up when they can't pass the background check.

For people claiming to be smarter than anyone else, the logic just fails terribly.

"I mean no one’s actually reading anyone else’s arguments so I think it would be just as effective as this thread."

I disagree. There are a couple of people who are very interested in saying words but not having a discussion. The rest of us are having a good time.

Or wait, there is the logic that anyone who believes in the right to bear arms is a racist, white supremacist redneck yahoo hanging out at the gun shows.

So clearly that is where the gangbangers are getting all their guns at!

The gunshows!!!

You know, cause I am sure there is nothing racist rednecks would love to do than heavily arm a bunch of inner city gangbangers.

I think we have it solved now.

Background checks at gunshows will eliminate any chance gangbangers and criminals have of getting a gun.

Whew. We can all rest easy now.

How is it dumb? It's logical. A LOT of gun sales are not covered by back ground checks. So, what is the impact of limiting background checks? If they were universal to all gun sales, people without criminal records wouldn't be affected. The only people who would be blocked from getting guns would be people who have criminal records, restraining orders or people on terrorist watch lists. Thus, those are the biggest beneficiaries of opposing universal gun checks. It is a mere statement of fact that blocking background checks has only the effect of making it easier for those people to get guns. In reality, opposition to background check is the same thing as lobbying for guns for criminals and terrorists. The logic is inescapable.

Cut bono? Is always a critical part of evaluating any advocacy position.

The “smart people” continue to ignore the 20M plus background checks already being done annually.

LOL!!!!!!

“In reality, opposition to background check is the same thing as lobbying for guns for criminals and terrorists. The logic is inescapable.”

The only thing inescapable is the failure of the logic and the ignorance to where the criminals and terrorists are getting the guns.

You're saying we should make it easier for gangbangers to get guns, because the current background checks don't 100% prevent some unwanted people getting guns...

There is obviously a problem with second-hand trade, if i buy a gun in the US i can sell it on without doing a background check, and maybe make more money by specifically selling to someone who wouldn't pass a background check...

Now that background check hasn't stopped that gun getting into the hands of the unwanted person; but it has made them pay more for it, so it was still a small improvement.

Also muted, because wasting my energy reading crap is a waste of energy.

“You're saying we should make it easier for gangbangers to get guns, because the current background checks don't 100% prevent some unwanted people getting guns...
”

No one has even remotely hinted at that.

LOL!!!!!

Complete failure at reading.

“Also muted, because wasting my energy reading crap is a waste of energy.”

Not comprehending what you read is a bigger waste.

“There is obviously a problem with second-hand trade, if i buy a gun in the US i can sell it on without doing a background check, and maybe make more money by specifically selling to someone who wouldn't pass a background check...

Now that background check hasn't stopped that gun getting into the hands of the unwanted person; but it has made them pay more for it, so it was still a small improvement.”

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

I would say the number of people going out buying guns legally through background checks and selling them for profit to known gangbangers and criminals is next to none.

Might as well come up with a scenario where an astronaut from the International Space Station buys a gun and uses it to assassinate the Pope.

Both scenarios are about equally likely.

Nit: Hypocrisy is advocating for something and DOING the opposite. Pointing out supposed flaws in an argument is not grounds for the label "hypocrite" so don't use the term lightly.

Especially since more Republicans than Democrats are hypocrites.

"Especially since more Republicans than Democrats are hypocrites"

Posting an unsupported opinion does not make it true.

So how about mocking those impacted by the hurricanes for being stupid for living on the coast while living in the highest risk earthquake area in the country?

How does that fit into your hypocrisy mold?

BTW, there's no such thing as the "gun show loophole" I have no idea what Obama was thinking when he went off on that stuff. It SHOULD be called the "private sale exemption loophole" based off of the Brady Law.

if you guys want to start debating THAT then go on ahead. It's an interesting topic, and frankly i'm alright closing that loophole, although once again... it doesn't do much prevent criminals. if they sell to one another, it's not like they were filing it on their tax returns in the first place. meanwhile making private sellers do background checks would be fine too... but that sounds like less of a preventative measure and there'd be some interesting logistical problems between police-business interactions.

"Pointing out supposed flaws in an argument is not grounds for the label "hypocrite" so don't use the term lightly.

Especially since more Republicans than Democrats are hypocrites."

How kind of you to define hypocrisy for us and then unintentionally give us a great example of the word in action.

"meanwhile making private sellers do background checks would be fine too... but that sounds like less of a preventative measure and there'd be some interesting logistical problems between police-business interactions."

Potentially massive logistical nigthmare...

Do you give the police the power to grant or deny licenses? I'm going to assume no... in which case who decides if the buyer passes the background check.

Assuming there is already a complete police database; and the buyer can simply generate a one-use key for the seller to check their record...

Does the police then examine the record and provide validation for the seller? And if it is not provided then it becomes an illegal sale? (and the seller is liable for any crimes committed with that gun).

^I actually don't know how things currently work. Obama was presumably talking about private sellers, who often meet at gun shows, and trade without doing background checks there. But even in principle, i don't know how background checks are conducted for gun sales.

"^I actually don't know how things currently work."
"i don't know how background checks are conducted for gun sales. "

But yet want to argue that things are being done poorly?

for the answer to the question posed in the thread title: 5778

Despite the fact that no one in this thread is talking about the topic posted in the thread. I would like to point out that this title is based on the somewhat misleading information. In reality, the UN resolution which the US voted against was on the death penalty in general and included in the resolution was that people should not be put to death simply for being gay. Some US states still support the death penalty and so the US tends to vote against things that are against the death penalty.