It’s also a lot easier. You can tell what country people are from by their passports. There’s no official record that indicates people’s religious affiliations.
Oh this just turns my stomach. Home shopping is going to sell guns on their new site. Words fail me. http://fortune.com/2015/12/06/gun-home-shopping-network/
OMG
Hyperbole.
Online is the exact same as buying in a gun store. Guns sold online are subject to same background checks, same waiting periods, gun gets shipped to a local FLL dealer not the purchaser, and the purchaser must pick up from the dealer only after the FLL dealer / store has confirmed all checks are passed - just like the purchaser would do in the gun store.
So what is the difference? The purchaser gets the gun he wants and is not limited to the much smaller selection of the vast majority of FLL dealers and stores.
Thanks for the explanation, awc. I was envisioning UPS dropping off a box o’ guns to the 13-year-old down the block, but I figured that couldn’t possibly be legal.
Sounds like it might make it a little bit easier for straw purchasers, though, especially in areas where there are no limits in how many guns you can buy in a period of time.
Not hyperbole in the least. I am truly nauseous. It’s disgusting. But you feel free to wrap one up as a Christmas present.
It’s a little odd to tell someone else they are not sick to their stomach. Presumably all posters here known the state of their own digestive systems.
I don’t think anyone has posted this. Interactive map of gun violence near you:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/12/gun_deaths_map_how_many_people_have_died_or_been_injured_in_shootings_around.html
President Carter banned Iranians in 1980…
And what is your point, granny2?
As some posters up thread said, banning based on the country of citizenship was done during a hostage crisis, it is easier to implement, there were precedents on such bans, etc. Banning the entire group of people practicing a particular religion needs to have a very, very compelling reason… So far, I don’t see how that can be argued here, unless one counts Communism as a religion, lol, then one can try to draw some parallels, but she will still need to prove why all Muslims would pose ideological or other danger to the US. Not gonna fly.
I know how to find out if a visa applicant is from Iran. I just look at their passport. How do I know if the visa applicant is a Muslim? Just guessing here, but I’m thinking that a person who wanted to come to the United States in order to kill people wouldn’t have any compunctions about lying on a visa application.
There is no basis to ban Muslims from entering the country the way Trump is saying. When Carter stopped Iranians from coming into the country, that was banning nationals from a particular country who technically were at war with the US (taking over an embassy under international law is an act of war; if Iran had no oil, it likely would have found itself under attack from NATO, since it violated the sovereign space of the US).
There is no single entity called “Muslims”, when we talk about banning Muslims, who exactly are we banning? Sufis, who pose a threat to no one and are generally hated by both Sunnis and Shia. Indian Muslims, who are generally peaceful…Muslims from Indonesia? Sunnis? Shia? The relatively few Muslim sects that are progressive? The US is putting restrictions on people from Syria and Iraq in terms of automatic green cards (the fiancee green card, etc), like the woman had with the couple who did the shooting (wouldn’t have helped there, since she was from Saudi Arabia, god help anyone put restrictions on people from there, which would make sense), but that is doing it by region, not religion. Trump himself tried pointing to the round up of Japanese, Italian and German foreign nationals, but those were aliens from countries were are at war with, we are not at war with Islam, we are at war with Islamic fundamentalists (well, okay, Islamic Fundamentalists except the Saudis, who are our “friends”). Trumps policy would be like Roosevelt ordering that citizens of Japanese origins be put into concentration camps,it was nothing more than fear and ugliness, not based in law (not to mention that the forced relocation of the Japanese made more then a few people wealthy from the real estate the Japanese were forced to sell at fire sale prices).
The Japanese-Americans interned in WWII were US citizens, not Japanese nationals. And there were no large scale internmant of German-Americans nor Italian-Americans.
Nope. Over half of the people of Japanese ancestry who were interned, some 60,000, were American citizens, including George Takei, of Star Trek fame, whose musical about Japanese internment is now on Broadway. US Representative Mike Honda, another American-born American citizen, was also an internee.
@novadad99:
Yep, that is why Trumps analogy is flawed, the Japanese who were sent to camps were US citizens, not aliens. The only thing Trumps idea of banning Muslims has in common with Roosevelts policy is that both are both idiotic.
I did not say what you state above.
What I said was that gun owners use guns to stop the commission of a crime as often as criminals use guns to commit crimes. I also stated that a good portion of those must be concealed carry holders because home invasions and home defense were only a subset of the stopped crimes. I did not say half of the crimes prevented are stopped by concealed carriers.
This question makes no sense, analytically and statistically.
First, most crimes are one-on-one assaults or very small group (e.g., a family) where the motive is not to mass shoot. And many are crimes of opportunity, not a crime of planning, such as a mass shooting. Concealed weapons carriers are effective in stopping these because the CCP holder is usually the target.
Second, there have been 73 successful mass shootings from 1982 - 2015. Statistically, that represents almost nothing in terms of the millions of crimes using guns that were committed during that time. Therefore, the chance that when a mass shooting is taking place that there is a concealed permit carrier as part of the target audience is statistically so low as to be incalculable.
Third, and most importantly, mass shooters, plan their crimes, are not stupid (even the mentally-ill ones can think), and they choose places where they know they will meet no return gun-fire opposition for the longest time possible. Actually, they are scarily smart in this regard.
The most currently discussed mass shootings on CC are listed below. And what is a common theme? They are basically gun-free zones. And since CCP holders tend to be very law abiding, it is statistically approaching zero that one would have CCP holders carrying in gun-free zones.
Dylan Roof - In a Church - Gun-Free Zone
Adam Lanza - Elementary School - Gun-Free Zone
James Holmes - Colorado Movie Theater - Gun-Free Zone
Oregon Community College - Gun-Free Zone (State law allows concealed carry guns, but the school handbook banned guns on campus with the penalty of being disciplined and even expelled for having one on campus)
Dear - Planned Parenthood Shootings - Gun-Free Zone
Ft Hood, TX - Effective Gun-Free Zone (98%+ of personnel disarmed on military base, even though many of those could carry outside base. Shooter knew who was armed and how to avoid them for the longest time possible.)
Military Recruitment Office, Chattanooga, TN - Gun-Free Zone (Even though they could carry outside their office.)
San Bernadino - Government Office Building - Gun-Free Zone
I understand you do not believe the statistics of Kleck and the CDC. However, real life is your biggest problem, not what you do not believe. All the people who stop a crime with their guns have relatives who were either part of the situation or hear about it. Meaning, people lived it that having a gun did stop them or their relatives from being hurt. Therefore, when gun control advocates say a gun statistically does not help in personal defense that is falling on many deaf ears because many have actually lived the reality of a gun saving either them or relatives.
Did the Walmart shooting (innocent man killed by police) last year occur in an open-carry state? And that poor fellow was simply holding a toy rifle in public.
That was not your claim. I don’t take kindly to being accused of misstating someone else’s words. Let’s go to the tape and see what you actually did say, awc. I’ll bold the relevant part. This is from message 1048.
You never said that you were comparing crimes stopped by gun owners to crimes committed with guns. That was not your claim, as we can easily see from the above quote. You said gun owners were stopping as many crimes as were successfully committed. Moreover, we can only make sense of your assertion that crime would be double without the stalwart gun owners, if gun owners were stopping half of ALL crime attempts.
If you now want to clarify that you were referring only to the number of gun crimes, there are not a million gun crimes per year. There about a half a million, and your “crime rate would be close to double” assertion goes out the window.