Facebook Cracking Down on Illegal Gun Sales

[mavrocket]

Also...you do you have loved ones you care about? Are their deaths worth someone having a gun so they can shoot at pieces of paper or animals they don't really need to eat to survive? When you lose someone you care very much about to someone with a gun, even one death might feel like too high of a price. But I don't expect empathy from the internet.

That goes both ways. If someone was commiting an evil act on one of your loved ones, wouldn't you want the capability of stopping them?

The thought that making gun ownership illegal would keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals who don't care they are illegally using the weapon is a farce.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

That goes both ways. If someone was commiting an evil act on one of your loved ones, wouldn't you want the capability of stopping them?

The thought that making gun ownership illegal would keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals who don't care they are illegally using the weapon is a farce.

We should take away baseball bats, knifes, lead pipes and the like while we're at it.

 

[mavrocket]

lol i seen someone post an image on facebook stating that facebook was going to crack down on profanity, too. lulz.

They couldn't do that, otherwise they'd have to scrub a 1/4 if not 1/2 of the posts already there.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Everyday!

According to the progressive dogma, I should not be associated with because I:

4. Want to lynch anyone who isn't Caucasian

Pretty sure this one is a real good reason why you should not be associated with.

 

[mavrocket]

Pretty sure this one is a real good reason why you should not be associated with.

Read the rest of the thread, mostly maverickv and I's back-and-forth.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

They couldn't do that, otherwise they'd have to scrub a 1/4 if not 1/2 of the posts already there.

Yeah I am pretty sure it's fake much like this article.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Cold hard facts and logic are better.

You mean like the article that was directly above the post you quoted that you ignored? (Really a significant and long running study went into that whole thing and you were so poorly informed you didn't even know there wasn't a background check requirement in MO for handgun purchases.) Or the logical conclusion that more guns means more guns available with which to commit crimes?

 

[Madoc]

Facebook to act as law enforcement for our own good.

Thanks, Facebook!

Signed,

Happy Serf

 

[Shalafi]

You mean like the article that was directly above the post you quoted that you ignored? (Really a significant and long running study went into that whole thing and you were so poorly informed you didn't even know there wasn't a background check requirement in MO for handgun purchases.) Or the logical conclusion that more guns means more guns available with which to commit crimes?

I also know a biased source when I see one. It's a Gun Policy research group, they have a vested interest in ensuring their funding continues.

More guns does not equal more crime, sorry.

If that were true, 300 million guns would mean we would see bloodbaths daily, yet we do not.

Try again.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

That goes both ways. If someone was commiting an evil act on one of your loved ones, wouldn't you want the capability of stopping them?

The thought that making gun ownership illegal would keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals who don't care they are illegally using the weapon is a farce.

No gun availability means no need to have a gun to respond in kind. Sure, there'll always be some of them around, but cutting off ammunition manufacture, raids and seizures after a grace period to turn in weapons, and government takeover of the companies that manufacture firearms would be a good start. Following it up with an educational program to broadly correct the campaigns launched in the past to alter overall societal thinking onto a more better course and you can take care of a lot of the problems with parents introducing those gun ownership rights ideas in their children. It would take a few generations for the changes in thought to fully integrate, but like racism, it'll eventually lose momentum and become just a fringe group thing.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

I also know a biased source when I see one. It's a Gun Policy research group, they have a vested interest in ensuring their funding continues.

More guns does not equal more crime, sorry.

If that were true, 300 million guns would mean we would see bloodbaths daily, yet we do not.

Try again.

Gun manufacturers have a vested interest too as do gun rights promoters as they depend on donations to pay their bills. There's bias on both sides and dismissing evidence to the contrary becase it disagrees with a preconception about a notion or proves that a thought process was incorrect isn't very reasonable. Science has come a long way at introducing new ideas and breaking down old walls of thought (like the Earth is flat) which people stongly believed in previously, yet here we are doing it all over again and proving humans really aren't any more developed than they were a few thousand years ago despite the trinkets and technological goo-gaws we've made for ourselves.

 

[Shalafi]

Gun manufacturers have a vested interest too as do gun rights promoters as they depend on donations to pay their bills. There's bias on both sides and dismissing evidence to the contrary becase it disagrees with a preconception about a notion or proves that a thought process was incorrect isn't very reasonable. Science has come a long way at introducing new ideas and breaking down old walls of thought (like the Earth is flat) which people stongly believed in previously, yet here we are doing it all over again and proving humans really aren't any more developed than they were a few thousand years ago despite the trinkets and technological goo-gaws we've made for ourselves.

Are you suggesting that freedom and liberty are outdated concepts?

 

[mavrocket]

No gun availability means no need to have a gun to respond in kind. Sure, there'll always be some of them around, but cutting off ammunition manufacture, raids and seizures after a grace period to turn in weapons, and government takeover of the companies that manufacture firearms would be a good start. Following it up with an educational program to broadly correct the campaigns launched in the past to alter overall societal thinking onto a more better course and you can take care of a lot of the problems with parents introducing those gun ownership rights ideas in their children. It would take a few generations for the changes in thought to fully integrate, but like racism, it'll eventually lose momentum and become just a fringe group thing.

Unfortunately for you and those who think incorrectly like you do, we have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to have firearms.

Fortunately for you and those who think incorrectly like you do, there is no right against childhood indoctrination and propaganda campaigns.

Besides, the fact that you are equating gun ownership to racism means the debate is over.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Are you suggesting that freedom and liberty are outdated concepts?

They're vague concepts that were used as the buzzwords and catchphrases of a bygone generation of wealthy societal elite to rally commoners into fighting an irrelevant engagement to prevent the upper social strata from having to be bothered paying taxes to the British crown. "Freedom" and "liberty" only exist as long as they don't impede the same vague concepts as they apply to some other citizen and therefore, are illusionary at best.

Also, if there are 9,000 gun related deaths per year in the US, then we do have a bloodbath on a daily basis in the nation in which you live. It averages out to 24.66 per day which is enough for 125 liters of blood (at about 5 per person) and that's more than enough to bathe in if you're that kind of person.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

Unfortunately for you and those who think incorrectly like you do, we have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to have firearms.

Fortunately for you and those who think incorrectly like you do, there is no right against childhood indoctrination and propaganda campaigns.

Besides, the fact that you are equating gun ownership to racism means the debate is over.

This is why he is part of my IL. Although when people who aren't on my IL quote him it kind of defeats the purpose. Le sigh.

 

[mope54]

This whole guns thing is a sticky issue. Some places on the planet aren't really very well controlled by law enforcement and maybe they'd be important to keep someone safe. In places like the US, they're pretty much not necessary since we have a reasonably safe nation.

Are you being facetious?

The US has the highest rates of violence in the Western world.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Unfortunately for you and those who think incorrectly like you do, we have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to have firearms.

Fortunately for you and those who think incorrectly like you do, there is no right against childhood indoctrination and propaganda campaigns.

Besides, the fact that you are equating gun ownership to racism means the debate is over.

It wasn't going anywhere anyhow. I don't think what you were doing was seeking a debate and neither was I so we don't have to kid ourselves. You're on that side and I'm on this side and neither of us is going to change an opinion for the benefit of the other side. It's perfectly okay to have differences in opinions, but I bet the racism "debate" contained the same kinds of discussions and someone probably dismissed it when a person brought up the flat earth debate. History is pretty repetitive that way.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Are you being facetious?

The US has the highest rates of violence in the Western world.

It also has very relaxed gun ownership laws. Hmm..oddly coincidental.

 

[Shalafi]

Are you being facetious?

The US has the highest rates of violence in the Western world.

We also have one of the most diverse populations in the Western World and one of the highest populations in the Western world.

The UK has all these strict laws, gun bans, etc, and yet has one of the highest crime and violence rates in Europe.

 

[mope54]

If that were true, 300 million guns would mean we would see bloodbaths daily, yet we do not.

We do have bloodbaths daily. The national murder rate has finally come back down from the ridiculous rates it was through the 90's but it's still high compared to the rest of the Western world.

But the problem is that the UCR data from which those numbers are derived are only showing national averages. If you look at certain places in the US, like Detroit or New Orleans, they have murder rates exceeding 50%!

 

[Deleted member 88227]

Are you being facetious?

The US has the highest rates of violence in the Western world.

Proof?

 

[Shalafi]

We do have bloodbaths daily. The national murder rate has finally come back down from the ridiculous rates it was through the 90's but it's still high compared to the rest of the Western world.

But the problem is that the UCR data from which those numbers are derived are only showing national averages. If you look at certain places in the US, like Detroit or New Orleans, they have murder rates exceeding 50%!

Those places also have large black populations and heavy restrictions on guns in those places. Heavy restrictions on guns in those cities, yet high crime rates, coincidence?

I think not.

Yet in rural areas, gun ownership is high, yet crime is low.

 

[mope54]

We also have one of the most diverse populations in the Western World and one of the highest populations in the Western world.

The UK has all these strict laws, gun bans, etc, and yet has one of the highest crime and violence rates in Europe.

Whoever told you that stats told you incorrect information.

Incidentally, the argument that our diverse population accounts for our gun violence is nonsensical. Most homicides are intraracial. In fact, in almost all street crime the victims and perpetrators look alike and come from similar backgrounds.

 

[Stiletto]

News flash: it's not illegal in most states to privately sell a gun to someone else. All you need to do is verify their age for yourself. That's it.

 

[mope54]

Those places also have large black populations and heavy restrictions on guns in those places. Heavy restrictions on guns in those cities, yet high crime rates, coincidence?

I think not.

Yet in rural areas, gun ownership is high, yet crime is low.

Crime is at an all time high in the rural communities I'm doing my research in. I'm referring to the PNW and Southern states. I haven't looked at the data for Midwestern states or more Eastern ones.

In the cases of where I've done my research, crime went up commensurate with gun ownership. The relationship doesn't seem to be causal, though.

In the case of guns leaking into communities with strong laws controlling guns that speaks more to the porous nature of communities, especially ones like Detroit that are near rural communities you are talking about that have high levels of gun ownership.

No, it's not a coincidence.

I'm not going to comment on your racialized comment. There's no way to go into that adequately in this section of the forum.

 

[Stiletto]

We do have bloodbaths daily.

...almost entirely involving gang members in the inner cities, or cops shooting people.

Subtract those, as well as gun suicides from the numbers of gun deaths in this country, and it's actually quite comparable to most Western nations.

But that doesn't fit your narrative, does it?

 

[heatlesssun]

Unfortunately for you and those who think incorrectly like you do, we have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to have firearms.

That's not really the big part of the gun debate these days. Sure the constitution says we have the rights to bear arms, the questions are what kinds of arms one is allowed to bear and when is it proper to used said arms. There are limits to the kinds of weapons citizens are allowed to legally own and those weapons cannot be used in any fashion that an owner desires, there are well established legal precedents here. However many do want to lower the bar when it permissible to legally use a weapon, with only fear being the necessary bar and that any consequence of using a weapon out of fear should be completely legal.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

You're wrong. The homicide rate for the Western World.


Northern America has a 3.9 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 13,558
Central America has a 28.5 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 44,997
South America has a 20.0 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 79,039
Caribbean has a 16.9 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 7,001


By Western Countries:
Brazil has a 21.8 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 42,785
Mexico has a 23.7 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 27,199+
United States of America has a 4.7 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 14,612
Panama has a 21.6 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total; 759

 

[Zero Cool]

You can legally buy guns on facebook haha?

 

[mope54]

You're wrong. The homicide rate for the Western World.


Northern America has a 3.9 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 13,558
Central America has a 28.5 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 44,997
South America has a 20.0 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 79,039
Caribbean has a 16.9 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 7,001


By Western Countries:
Brazil has a 21.8 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 42,785
Mexico has a 23.7 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 27,199+
United States of America has a 4.7 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total: 14,612
Panama has a 21.6 per 100,000 inhabitants killed in 2012. Total; 759

When criminologists talk about the "Western" world we're looking at civilizations that look somewhat like "us."

You just ranked us with the some pretty fucked up places in the world.

Now go compare us to someplace you'd actually like to live with a stable government, some human rights, and some functional democratic society...

 

[Shalafi]

...almost entirely involving gang members in the inner cities, or cops shooting people.

Subtract those, as well as gun suicides from the numbers of gun deaths in this country, and it's actually quite comparable to most Western nations.

But that doesn't fit your narrative, does it?

You have hit upon it, CRIMINALS that have guns and don't follow laws to begin with. Passing moar laws isn't going to change that.

 

[Semantics]

Private transfers from citizen to citizen are GENERALLY LEGAL within the same state in the United States and DO NOT require a background check. Here's what the ATF says:

https://www.atf.gov/content/firearm...ns-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer

Facts > Media crap.

Granted if you sold a gun to a criminal because your flippant about selling your guns online and that criminal used it to commit a crime you can be held partly liable by the state, some states more judicious about this then others

 

[cyzzledyzzle]

bazookas are still ok to sell though.

 

[mope54]

I don't know what he meant by my "narrative" as I haven't laid any kind of argument out in the thread but I find it interesting that he said once we subtract all the gun crime from our violent crime statistics it starts to look comparable to the rest of the other nations.

I mean, he's wrong anyway (the stats still don't line up), but generally when we talk about guns it doesn't make sense to subtract the gun crime before concluding that guns aren't part of the issue!

 

[Deleted member 109755]

When you have an agenda you'll make any "fact" fit your agenda.

 

[heatlesssun]

Granted if you sold a gun to a criminal because your flippant about selling your guns online and that criminal used it to commit a crime you can be held partly liable by the state, some states more judicious about this then others

If anyone had bothered to read the blog post, all Facebook is saying about this subject is that you can't promote no background checks when selling a weapon. That's a very sensible thing for them to enforce from a legal standpoint.

 

[Stiletto]

Whoever told you that stats told you incorrect information.

It's not incorrect. It's true that in countries with strict gun laws, the gun murder rate tends to be lower. However, the rates of other violent crimes are far, far higher than we have. Australia's assault rate is gargantuan compared to our own.

In 2012 in the United States, the violent crime rate was just under 400 offenses per 100,000 population. Now let's look at gun-banned Australia's figures, just for assault:

New South Wales recorded 68,745 victims of assault; a 3% decrease from 2011, with an overall victimisation rate of 943 victims per 100,000 persons.
South Australia recorded 15,161 victims of assault; a 7% decrease from 2011, with an overall victimisation rate of 916 victims per 100,000 persons.
Western Australia recorded 23,118 victims of assault; a 7% increase from 2011, with an overall victimisation rate was 951 victims per 100,000 persons.
The Northern Territory recorded 7,088 victims of assault; a 5% increase from 2011, with an overall victimisation rate of 3,018 victims per 100,000 persons.
The Australian Capital Territory recorded 1,993 victims of assault; a decrease of 11% from 2011, with an overall victimisation rate of 532 victims per 100,000 persons.

Remember that US figure of 400 per 100,000 people? That was all violent crimes, not just assault. The full violent crimes figures for Australia? Strangely enough, not easy to track down. I wonder if that's because they're not too proud of that number. These numbers of "selected" violent crimes indicate that nationwide, in 2010 Australia had about 800-900 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

How about England and Wales, the oft-referenced nirvana of safety thanks to the whisking away of gun rights? Well, they had just under two million incidences of violent crime in a country of about 55 million. The math isn't hard, but the answers are frightening. You're talking around 3500 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

I've explained this before. In the US, you have a slightly higher chance of getting shot than you do in places like the UK and Australia. That chance is still ridiculously low due to the demographics that affect your chances of being shot, but yes, it's still higher. Meanwhile, your chances of getting knocked out and robbed, getting the shit beaten out of you, or even getting raped, are enormously higher in those gun-free countries.

So the whole claim that gun bans make people safer is an outright and utter lie. In fact, such legislation just seems to create far more likelihood that you will be subjected to crimes that you will have to live with...and possibly relive when they happen again.

 

[Stiletto]

When criminologists talk about the "Western" world we're looking at civilizations that look somewhat like "us."

You just ranked us with the some pretty fucked up places in the world.

Now go compare us to someplace you'd actually like to live with a stable government, some human rights, and some functional democratic society...

Oh, I do look forward to you addressing my prior post. Too bad you won't be able to draw the race card again, even if it's still utterly irrelevant to the information you're addressing.

 

[Shalafi]

It's not incorrect. It's true that in countries with strict gun laws, the gun murder rate tends to be lower. However, the rates of other violent crimes are far, far higher than we have. Australia's assault rate is gargantuan compared to our own.

In 2012 in the United States, the violent crime rate was just under 400 offenses per 100,000 population. Now let's look at gun-banned Australia's figures, just for assault:



Remember that US figure of 400 per 100,000 people? That was all violent crimes, not just assault. The full violent crimes figures for Australia? Strangely enough, not easy to track down. I wonder if that's because they're not too proud of that number. These numbers of "selected" violent crimes indicate that nationwide, in 2010 Australia had about 800-900 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

How about England and Wales, the oft-referenced nirvana of safety thanks to the whisking away of gun rights? Well, they had just under two million incidences of violent crime in a country of about 55 million. The math isn't hard, but the answers are frightening. You're talking around 3500 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

I've explained this before. In the US, you have a slightly higher chance of getting shot than you do in places like the UK and Australia. That chance is still ridiculously low due to the demographics that affect your chances of being shot, but yes, it's still higher. Meanwhile, your chances of getting knocked out and robbed, getting the shit beaten out of you, or even getting raped, are enormously higher in those gun-free countries.

So the whole claim that gun bans make people safer is an outright and utter lie. In fact, such legislation just seems to create far more likelihood that you will be subjected to crimes that you will have to live with...and possibly relive when they happen again.

All that gun bans and higher crime rates in other countries prove is that gun bans don't lower crime and only increase crime. Gun bans just make them find a different instrument of violence.

 

[Semantics]

All that gun bans and higher crime rates in other countries prove is that gun bans don't lower crime and only increase crime. Gun bans just make them find a different instrument of violence.

Then the question would be in what relation to fatal crimes.