Wing-Zero wrote: jaydeehess wrote:
Oh, I get now. If its on "60 Minutes" its all wrong.
Although anything that isn't on History Channel or Discovery Channel that is about guns is usually grossly innacurate, that particular showing did bring a couple things to light.
It shouldn't be that easy to get a gun, dealers at gun shows should have more restrictions placed on them so they don't slack off and sell to someone who's obviously incapable of handling the responsibility of a gun, etc.
But at the same time, ABC and the like always seem to coat anything that has to do with guns with the same liberal amount of BS, mistakes in terminology, fixed simulations, and use of over exaggerated scare tactics thats only purpose is really to attempt to frighten suburban moms and people who think that guns are sentient objects that are obviously out to kill children and cops.
So no, just because it's on 60 Minutes doesn't mean it's flat out wrong, it just means it should be taken with a grain of salt and not completely bought into.
"60 Minutes" is on CBS but I take your point.
I have chaffed at innaccuracy in terminology when the networks discuss science and technology so I am aware that journalists do not always inform themselves properly. However, the NRA spokesman did not challenge the statements concerning background checks, Instead he made the incredible propistion of cancelling all background checks.
A poster above says that anti-gun lobby blames a tool. Obviously in my discussion in this thread I am not doing that, but let's take the 'tool' idea a little further and compare to the tool of an automobile. I am not speaking of the requirement for a license. The analogy here would be
what to do with a person who has misued this tool by driving drunk. We take that person's legal ability to drive away. Similarily if a person commits certain crimes we remove their legal right to own a firearm. this is done, in both cases, to attempt to protect the public.
In the case of the drunk driver there is nothing physically preventing him from driving granted but I would hope that people see my point. I know all analogies break down at some point.
In the case of firearms a background check is done on persons wanting to purchase them. A good idea IMO and the only way that one can make the slightest effort to make the purchase of firearms less easy for those whom we do not want to have legal access to them.
If however background checks are subverted by only requireing them on one type of purchase then this would be like only taking away the legal permission to drive on certain streets from convicted drunk drivers.
I am quite certain you understood my initial post when I stated that the reaction of the NRA spokesman was, in effect, that it should be possible for convicted felons and insane persons to purchase firearms legally.
Now other posters above posted about pedophiles in the neighbourhoods. I too would be very concerned about that. I would also be concerned about previously convicted violent felons or those persons who are known to not be in contact with reality, being able to walk into a gun show and purchase firearms basically legally. It is insane to allow the insane to have firearms.
Math, science, history unraveling the mystery, that all started with a Big Bang.....BANG!!