Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer backing campaign for tighter gun control

Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, both former CEOs of Microsoft, are backing a gun-control campaign in Washington state that is pushing for all gun sales to require a background check even if it does not come from a firearm dealer. But those two are not the only Microsoft employees donating to the cause with a total of 18 other donations from Microsoft employees noted as well.

Gates donated $50,000 to the cause while Ballmer wrote a check for $580,000 but compared to their wealth, it was not a large sum, but for the campaign, it has amounted to a significant contribution as those for the cause are outpacing those against it by a ratio of 4:1. 

It's not unusual for wealthy individuals to get involved with political campaigns and it is clear that both Ballmer and Gates stand on the same side of the fence when it comes to gun control in the state of Washington. While money can't buy votes, it certainly does help to sway public opinion about which way they should vote.

For Ballmer, this is a small check compared to the one he wrote for $2b for the LA Clippers as that deal finally closed this week too.

Source: BusinessWeek | Image Credit: Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

T-Mobile planning to throttle some unlimited data users

Next Story

It may be a while before US users get Xbox One's upcoming TV streaming to SmartGlass feature

103 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

My big question: Why would Neowin post a front page news article like this when you know its going to be a flamefest.

Ah yes, cheap hits. Never mind.

Hey big bro:
Send my thanks to Steve B for the correction on who's really in charge and we both no it's not the dark, we got that. And a big congrats on the new team I know there going to be well taken care of.
Friends always Sonya

LMAO...ever notice, the ones that are for this cause or that cause, that would restrict, or repeal your rights, never have to worry about anything? In the case of the 2nd amendment, and your right to defend yourself, you think Bill & Steve have to worry about the possibility of someone breaking in their house, stealing their things, shooting them on the streets? Nope, because they can AFFORD to hire security companies, THAT CARRY FIREARMS, to protect them.
How about these two rich a-holes shut the f*ck up and quit trying to "help".

How about idiots stop thinking that any gun control legislation means that they want to take your weapons away so you can't defend yourself inside your home. Geez, this country is screwed.

Disdain said,
How about idiots stop thinking that any gun control legislation means that they want to take your weapons away so you can't defend yourself inside your home. Geez, this country is screwed.

With politicians in power like Sen. Feinstein that say things like this after the big gun debate that took place after Newtown:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

Can you really blame us?

Must be nice to be protected by those tall gates and...oh what are those people called....oh right security guards with GUNS! What a joke.

How is it a joke? Advocating for universal background checks and having personal security are two completely unrelated things.

Disdain said,
How is it a joke? Advocating for universal background checks and having personal security are two completely unrelated things.

This is not universal background checks, this is a massive bill (more than 18 pages) with tons of contradictions with no way to enforce this law without registration.

It is a setup for more gun control and puts a lot more on the book than just universal background checks like its being sold as. Read the law people not the article.

Is there any gun control legislation that you guys don't think is a setup for more gun control, which is a setup for even more gun control, which is a setup for a complete ban?

I can see how Bill and Steve would be for this. They have armed private body guards. If we can just take guns away from law abiding citizens then only Government employees, criminals, and the very wealthy will be able to defend themselves. If ordinary citizens need to defend themselves they can just throw a shoe at the criminal while waiting for police to show up. The ability to defend ones self should only be reserved for the elite in our society, not the ordinary law abiding citizen that the elites confuse with the criminal element. (sarcasm intended)

Universal background checks sound good on the surface, however; they end up being universal gun registration, and eventually universal gun confiscation with heavily militarized gestapo showing up at ones door in the middle of the night.

This November there will be to gun initiatives on the ballot I-594(anti) and I-591(pro). Please get informed and registered to vote. I'm posting some of the double speak from the 594 initiative so you can see for yourselves how bad this bill is.

If 594 passes then taking friends or neighbors out to a shooting pit in the woods would now require a background check before letting a friend shoot a firearm. As you can see in See Section 3 (4) (f) the firearm HAS to be kept at the range, and the range has to be an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located. Go look it up and read it for yourself.

Under Section 3 (4)(f)(iv) those under 18 will no longer be able to hunt on their own land unless an adult is with them.

A person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms.

Received some firearms due to death in the family? Under Section 3(4)(g) After 60 days you have to register them but in Section 1 it says that gifts are exempt. So which is it?

Section 1 Background checks would not be required for gifts between immediate family members or for antiques. However in section (g)....

(g) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by
operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or
(ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former
owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days.At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal and state laws.

Section 2 (25)
(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another
person without consideration of payment or promise of payment
including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.
However in section 3(4)(g)

So loaning a firearm to a friend to go hunting? Not without a background check. Want to gift a firearm to a relative? Not without a background check.
Want to loan a firearm to a friend at a range? Not without a background check.

theshadowhunter said,

So loaning a firearm to a friend to go hunting? Not without a background check. Want to gift a firearm to a relative? Not without a background check.
Want to loan a firearm to a friend at a range? Not without a background check.

That is great! I am voting I-594, thanks for making it clear.

Euphoria said,

That is great! I am voting I-594, thanks for making it clear.

I have no words for you. You can't even debate with someone with the mentality like that.

I hear people that say guns should be like cars. Last time I checked you don't have to register someone with your car to let them borrow it. This would be the most insane regulation if true. Nothing is regulated like this out there, and nothing should.

Will any of this save lives? NO. I though that was the point of bills like this.All it will do is just create criminals out of people who are not criminals.

theshadowhunter said,

Last time I checked you don't have to register someone with your car to let them borrow it.

Actually if your friend borrows your car several times periodically, he has to be in the insurance otherwise it is illegal.

As a Washington state resident and a registered voter I am completely against this bill. If you read the bill (I don't care about the article) they are making it illegal to lend someone your gun to shoot it. This law would make gun safety classes that let people handle firearms that aren't theirs against he law and effectively making people less gun smart. Tell me how that sounds like a good law?

It will not be illegal to hunt with a borrowed gun, but you will have to go through a background check to loan it to them and again when they return it. You will also have to go through a background check if you are teaching someone to shoot and give them a gun to try. I-594 is just something to harass those who would legally use firearms. How does this sound smart? Each time you transfer the gun you have to pay a transfer fee and go to a licensed firearms dealer to do this and pay money at the same time. How many people do you think are going to follow this law?

Guns are already illegal to buy off the internet without going through a FFL dealer, at gun shows here in Washington (other than that controversial one in Tacoma) you have to have a background check to join the club to buy or sell there.

How can they stop people that sell guns to someone else out of the back of their car? They can't, this is a dumb bill, I will never support it and only people that aren't gun law knowledgeable will vote for it. Enforce the current laws on the books before creating more laws.

This law won't stop gun violence it will only make unnecessary criminals out of people. There is another bill on the ballet this year that I will support, that's 591 (which protects our gun rights). Not this 18 page anti gun bill (594) that will be backed by the uneducated or gun grabbers or the elite like these two that have no concept of laws.

theshadowhunter said,
It will not be illegal to hunt with a borrowed gun, but you will have to go through a background check to loan it to them and again when they return it.

Not true, actually.

Current law requires criminal and public safety background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. This measure would extend this requirement to most firearm purchases and transfers in Washington, with exceptions, including transfers within families, temporary transfers for self-defense and hunting, and antiques. Licensed dealers would conduct the background checks and could charge a fee.

smot said,

Not true, actually.

(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law.

Under section 2(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.

as long as you go through NICS to "loan" a weapon...

The problem with the anti-gun crowd is that they have been 1) brainwashed by liberal politics, 2) forget the lessons of history.

Technology may have changed the way we live, think, and do things, but one thing remains a constant threat to people: it's the human nature. How many times have there been a person in power, whether it be from the lowliest village governor to the most powerful emperor, that have abused their powers? Too many to list. This is why countries that have existed from antiquity until now have shared a similar trend in the way they rise and fall. They always start off with noble cause, then go into corruption and eventually decline or collapse altogether. The people in these nations are usually the ones that suffer most.

The founding fathers of America knew their history well, for it was just a few generations back that their forefathers fled Europe's religious intolerance, where they were burned at the stake, tortured for their beliefs that were different than the Roman Catholic Church. The U.S. Constitution was written and influenced by one primary principle: human nature cannot be trusted.

The U.S. government, along with all other governments in the world are already plagued with corruption, and it's getting worse, do you really think they would just all of a sudden become saints in their endeavors should a total gun-ban be in place?

My God, learn to think independently and learn from history.

What are you on about?????
Nobody in this article mentions a total gun ban.
They are supporting legislation that makes background checks mandatory for every gun purchase.
This is a sensible thing to do!

^ This. The constitutional right to own guns is not simply so we can defend ourselves from burglars and muggers, but from the government if necessary.

While the problem with gun nuts is they see any gun control legislation as a path to completely ban guns. Learn to not be crazy.

Do you not remember a ban not to long ago on alcohol? It started being regulated and then eventually led to a ban (luckily repealed later). Same thing with marijuana and other things. They will keep adding regulations onto guns until they are banned if we let them. California has lots of guns they have already banned and now they are starting to ban certain kinds of ammo. It all adds up, slowly removing people's rights.

That's how it all starts, they know better than to ban guns all at once so they must do incrementally until a complete ban is in place.

Disdain said,
You see how accurate my comment was? Complete paranoia.

Someone dies and we demand more laws, and somehow that's not paranoia or a knee-jerk reaction? Christ.

Can a pro gun USA citizen please explain me all the knee jerk reactions in this thread????
What is so wrong with requiring a background check when you purchase a gun from any source?
How does this infringe on your 2nd amendment? How does this turn into: "The rich can keep their guns, but mom on the street is not allowed to have any anymore"

How do you guys make that leap with a straight face???

As an American citizen myself, I really can't explain it. These people are just totally irrational and will balk at any mention of gun control, even if it's just an expansion of existing law to cover private gun sales.

A Background check is pretty much gun registration. It gives government too much information, and it's an important they can use to determine where there are probable gun owners should a total ban were in place.

Because the fear is that the background checks are going to be used as a registry, which the people talking about background checks have proposed for quite some time. At the end of the day, background checks won't stop people from getting guns who don't want to go through background checks. The black market will still be alive and well.

The fear is not unsubstantiated either considering the fact that 2nd amendment rights have been eroded away since the 1930's. Now, we have officials saying you don't need more than 10 rounds, 7 rounds, 5 rounds, removable magazines, adjustable stocks, pistol grips, vertical fore-grips, semi-automatic weapons, or anything other than a double barrel shotgun.

If you give a mouse a cookie, he's bound to want some milk.

Pluribus said,
A Background check is pretty much gun registration. It gives government too much information, and it's an important they can use to determine where there are probable gun owners should a total ban were in place.

Yep - the formula - gun registration => gun confiscation => police state => mass murder - is a demonstrable, historical and contemporary fact of life.

What are you even talking about? The NICS does not track or store gun transactions. This is why nothing happens on this subject. Irrational people think that any legislation will ultimately lead to a gun ban. Ignoring the fact that America as a whole (not just Conservative Republicans) love guns.

xerodown said,

Yep - the formula - gun registration => gun confiscation => police state => mass murder - is a demonstrable, historical and contemporary fact of life.

The only thing that come to mind when I read this is tinfoil hat
You guys are just batshit crazy

Stoffel said,

The only thing that come to mind when I read this is tinfoil hat
You guys are just batshit crazy

Yes, because that exact formula hasn't been repeated throughout history. You say we are crazy, I say you are ignorant of history.

Stoffel said,

The only thing that come to mind when I read this is tinfoil hat
You guys are just batshit crazy

OK. Although I would encourage to read up on history of mass genocide and see if there is a pattern that emerges.

Just to reference a few - The following are “civilized” countries that confiscated guns from the populace and the resulting murders that followed: Turkey 1915-1917 1.5 million dead; Soviet Union 1929-1953 20 million dead; Nazi Germany 1933-1945 13 million dead; China 1949-1976 20 million dead; Guatemala 1960-1981 100,000 dead; Uganda 1971-1979 300,000 dead; Cambodia 1975-1979 one million dead.

It's really easy to take away your rights when you can't fight back.

xerodown said,

It's really easy to take away your rights when you can't fight back.

No one is proposing to take away your guns. What don't you people understand? Expanding background checks to cover all gun sales is not radical. Whatever, continue to fight for the right to sell your guns to criminals.

Edited by Disdain, Aug 14 2014, 3:26pm :

xerodown said,

Yep - the formula - gun registration => gun confiscation => police state => mass murder - is a demonstrable, historical and contemporary fact of life.

Yeah, that's why the proposed Senate bill specifically put a 20 year prison penalty on anyone attempting to make a gun registry. Keep living in your alternate reality where the government is out to take all of your guns. Why don't you guys use the inane slippery slope argument for everything else you're against? "Gay Marriage? That will lead to people being able to marry their dog!"

Disdain said,
What are you even talking about? The NICS does not track or store gun transactions. This is why nothing happens on this subject. Irrational people think that any legislation will ultimately lead to a gun ban. Ignoring the fact that America as a whole (not just Conservative Republicans) love guns.

You are absolutely correct - the NICS system does not but the 4473 does.

Disdain said,
The 4473 form is not used in any sort of gun registry or database.

"FFLs must keep a copy of each ATF Form 4473
for which a NICS check has been initiated,
regardless of whether the transfer of the firearm
was completed. If the transfer is not completed,
the FFL must keep the Form 4473 for 5 years
after the date of the NICS inquiry. If the transfer
is completed, the FFL must keep the Form 4473
for 20 years after the date of the sale or
disposition"

And as part of the Brady law the ATF has access to 4473s any time they want.

The main reason for me against private sales registration is because the government has no business knowing about my private transactions between me and another person. Do you want the government to know about every thing you purchase?

Also, there are plenty of laws that make killing someone with a gun illegal as well as being illegal to have a gun if already convicted of a felony. Those laws need to be enforced instead of creating more laws that will be more difficult to enforce. Enforcement is the issue not more and more laws that won't be enforced.

Enforcement is part of the issue. However, a gun sale isn't like any other transaction. When you're transferring a deadly weapon to someone (especially a stranger), you should know that the person isn't a felon. Yes, they can always buy a gun illegally somewhere else, I get it. But shouldn't we be making it as difficult as possible for people to do that?

Reducing the number of guns in the hands of nutcases, while making sure legal gun ownership is protected would be the best version of gun control, and the only version I'll support. I choose not to own a gun, but I see nothing wrong with owning one for hunting or self-defense.

I have no problem with background checks, but education should also be mandated, to help make sure than legal gun ownership is also responsible ownership. All first-time gun owners should be required to take a gun safety class. Proper handling, proper storage, that sort of thing. It would at the very least reduce the number of gun accidents, and if guns are safely locked away when not in use, they would be more difficult to steal as well.

Gun ownership is a right, but its also a responsibility.

Edited by DConnell, Aug 14 2014, 1:08pm :

DConnell said,
Reducing the number of guns in the hands of nutcases, while making sure legal gun ownership is protected would be the best version of gun control, and the only version I'll support. I choose not to own a gun, but I see nothing wrong with owning one for hunting or self-defense.

I have no problem with background checks, but education should also be mandated, to help make sure than legal gun ownership is also responsible ownership. All first-time gun owners should be required to take a gun safety class. Proper handling, proper storage, that sort of thing. It would at the very least reduce the number of gun accidents, and if guns are safely locked away when not in use, they would be more difficult to steal as well.

Gun ownership is a right, but its also a responsibility.

Well said. I Absolutely agree.

DConnell said,
Reducing the number of guns in the hands of nutcases, while making sure legal gun ownership is protected would be the best version of gun control, and the only version I'll support. I choose not to own a gun, but I see nothing wrong with owning one for hunting or self-defense.

I have no problem with background checks, but education should also be mandated, to help make sure than legal gun ownership is also responsible ownership. All first-time gun owners should be required to take a gun safety class. Proper handling, proper storage, that sort of thing. It would at the very least reduce the number of gun accidents, and if guns are safely locked away when not in use, they would be more difficult to steal as well.

Gun ownership is a right, but its also a responsibility.


I don't know how I would feel if NSA started tracking people who get bullied, suffer from depression, and potentially had recent stressful situations, are impulsive, hate a certain group of people enough to kill them, etc.

I suggeset a new article title: "Men who live in private guarded housing and employ armed body guards to advocate you have neither"

spenser.d said,
I'm guessing all their guards had background checks, just like everyone should get when trying to purchase guns.
Their background check was a term of employment, not whether they were allowed to own the guns they carry.

So I guess you're another gun lover that likes to blow things out of proportion? You folks are the most dramatic people.

Rational people: "Maybe people buying guns should be required to have a background check to ensure they're actually allowed to have one".

Gun-lovers: "What? Stop trying to take away my freedom!"

Also, I don't suppose Office Worker Joe is in as much risk as Mr. Rich Guy.

I can't imagine many would choose to come after an ordinary stranger, kidnap his kid and demand a working man's ransom when there are rich people to feed off.

Gotta love it when rich guys with armed security lobby to take the single moms guns away even though she has a constitutional amendment protecting her god given right to own a gun.

xerodown said,
Gotta love it when rich guys with armed security lobby to take the single moms guns away even though she has a constitutional amendment protecting her god given right to own a gun.

Wow, your god is one morbid ######er. The gods people worship here in Europe seem to be against violence and murder these days.

God was the word our founders used but they meant your natural right. You have a right to defend yourself given to you by the universe. Why you would want to give up that right or any other right (they outlined 10) because some people with money and power say so is beyond me.

Exactly, as long as they have armed guards why should they have any influence to tell me I am not allowed to protect myself in the same way? Elites like these have no idea how to live in the real world any longer as they only interact with the same close-minded and monied individuals who share the same wacky liberal beliefs. It seems that those on here who want to bad mouth those of us who stand up for our constitutional and God-given rights are some how "enlightened" forget that the empirical data shows that when the criminals don't know who is and who is not armed they are less likely to start trouble. This is why you see war zone style violence in cities like Chicago. The more they ban guns the more shootings there have been and there is data to back it up. The criminals are always going to find ways to arm themselves. I never saw a criminal change their behavior because of a law, why would gun control laws be any different?

xerodown said,
God was the word our founders used but they meant your natural right. You have a right to defend yourself given to you by the universe. Why you would want to give up that right or any other right (they outlined 10) because some people with money and power say so is beyond me.

You do realise that was quite a few hundred years ago, yes? A time before personal hygiene was a consideration, a time when people were illiterate and human rights unbeknownst to even the wisest of people.

Guns were invented to kill, and that they do in a highly efficient manner. Surely death is not the purpose of self defence?

Jub Fequois said,
A time before personal hygiene was a consideration, a time when people were illiterate and human rights unbeknownst to even the wisest of people.

No it wasnt.

Jub Fequois said,

Surely death is not the purpose of self defence?
This cant be a serious question.

Yep - I get all that. I would assume you live across the pond and I understand your worldview. I am not criticizing it but I do think there are people all over the world that like to criticize the US for our culture and beliefs (not saying you are one of them) That may not have ever been to the US or traveled throughout our country. They may have just been to NY, LA or Chicago and think they have a good grasp of the country.

I would add just as a data point that US is a very big country. There are parts of the US that it can take 30 min to an hour for the police to get to you house. If there is an issue via by another human or a large mammal (we have those here) you're on your own. The 2nd amendment is about three things 1) self defense from human or animal 2) protecting yourself from a tyrannical government and 3) putting food on the table. In those wide open space I'm referring to above, its possible to get everything you need from the land. Thats much more difficult without a firearm, possible but much more difficult.

xerodown said,
Yep - I get all that. I would assume you live across the pond and I understand your worldview. I am not criticizing it but I do think there are people all over the world that like to criticize the US for our culture and beliefs (not saying you are one of them) That may not have ever been to the US or traveled throughout our country. They may have just been to NY, LA or Chicago and think they have a good grasp of the country.

I would add just as a data point that US is a very big country. There are parts of the US that it can take 30 min to an hour for the police to get to you house. If there is an issue via by another human or a large mammal (we have those here) you're on your own. The 2nd amendment is about three things 1) self defense from human or animal 2) protecting yourself from a tyrannical government and 3) putting food on the table. In those wide open space I'm referring to above, its possible to get everything you need from the land. Thats much more difficult without a firearm, possible but much more difficult.

Did you actually read the article????
They are not promoting a ban on guns in Washington, they are simply supporting legislation that would make it illegal to just sell your gun to anybody without a proper background check.

I would assume lawful gun owners would be a fan of such legislation so not every little silly ######er can get a gun and give you guys a bad name.

Sadly enough you have just the same ###### reaction like most gun nuts when they read about any restrictions of guns. Sad, very sad!!!!

MikeInBA said,

This cant be a serious question.

It's a fair point, there are other ways to defend yourself and your property / possessions / family other than guns.

Surely the Amendments are by now antiquated and should, in themselves be amended taking in account the modern world. Letting everyone have the right to bear arms is a very dangerous thing, you need a license to drive a car, why not regulate those who are able to use a firearm?

Stoffel said,

Did you actually read the article????
They are not promoting a ban on guns in Washington, they are simply supporting legislation that would make it illegal to just sell your gun to anybody without a proper background check.

I would assume lawful gun owners would be a fan of such legislation so not every little silly ######er can get a gun and give you guys a bad name.

Sadly enough you have just the same ###### reaction like most gun nuts when they read about any restrictions of guns. Sad, very sad!!!!

Cause that's going to matter to the arms dealer out on the street selling fresh new guns that were imported illegally into the US... Lol make sure that background check is done before you get into that van

Gotta love pro-gun people that stop reading at the word gun control. This has nothing do with taking away guns from single moms, where do you guys even get this BS from? How can you possibly be against background checks which only prevents people who are not legally allowed to own a gun to purchase one.

xerodown said,
God was the word our founders used but they meant your natural right. You have a right to defend yourself given to you by the universe. Why you would want to give up that right or any other right (they outlined 10) because some people with money and power say so is beyond me.

How you can rationally think this will take away your "god given right" to protect yourself is beyond me.

Yep - I read it. Let me ask you a question - do you believe that we should have a database of all the guns in the US and when someone buys a new gun that that person's info along with the guns info go into that DB?

I actually believe all guns should be tracked from the manufacturer. How do you think we have so many illegal guns on the streets? They're not accounted for. However, that's irrelevant since that's not what's even being proposed here. Heck, the Senate bill that failed to pass a while ago specifically made it a crime to even attempt to create a database like that. But of course there were talking points from the right that this would lead to a gun database. Typical slippery slope argument with no basis in reality.

Jub Fequois said,

You do realise that was quite a few hundred years ago, yes? A time before personal hygiene was a consideration, a time when people were illiterate and human rights unbeknownst to even the wisest of people.

Guns were invented to kill, and that they do in a highly efficient manner. Surely death is not the purpose of self defence?

When someone is trying to kill you, death is a very appropriate response. If there is any other way, you will obviously take it. However, there often is not.

Disdain said,

How you can rationally think this will take away your "god given right" to protect yourself is beyond me.

Yea. It seems to me that many pro-gun folks are so fixed in stating their right to defend themselves no matter what, that they don't really listen properly to the very legitimate safety concerns that are not just coming from staunch anti-gun supporters, but just general people.

Such knee-jerk paranoia can be pretty unnerving, even to other pro-gun supporters.

Disdain said,
Gotta love pro-gun people that stop reading at the word gun control. This has nothing do with taking away guns from single moms, where do you guys even get this BS from? How can you possibly be against background checks which only prevents people who are not legally allowed to own a gun to purchase one.

We already have background checks, and yet people who wouldn't pass that (or the intuition of many competent store owners) still get guns via the black market. So they get more background checks. Doesn't help. They go for registration. Doesn't help. They go for regulation. Doesn't help. They go for confiscation. Doesn't help.

They same people who are telling us we need more gun control are the ones who sent firearms (that would be classified as illegal under the unconstitutional NFA as they were new full-auto weapons) to drug cartels across the border. These same arms are now being used to kill our border agents and other who cross the cartels.

So tell me why I should believe that all they want is to keep guns out of the hands of those who wouldn't pass a background check?

All I hear is the BS slippery slope argument, which is only used when you don't have an actual argument. There will always be illegal gun sales, so stop using that as an excuse for inaction. This is to cover all "legal" gun transactions. You can currently sell a gun to a stranger without knowing if they're legally allowed to own one. Wouldn't the supposed law abiding gun owners want to know who they're selling a deadly weapon to? Whatever, I'm used to being called a freedom hating liberal by gun nuts for my rational stance.

Ralph3100 said,
.....

You don't even need to go to the black market.
Just have someone who passes the check buy it for you.

Once the gun is legally theirs, they can resell it to you.

Happened with a retired police officer and one of his relatives in some state. In this case it wasn't because of a check, but to get a discount on the original purchase.

Jub Fequois said,
Wow, your god is one morbid ######er. The gods people worship here in Europe seem to be against violence and murder these days.

I didn't realize the Bible differed so drastically. Does God not flood the earth in your book, or did we just get the Michael Bay version?

It is a bit humorous when you look at the big picture. Great Britain is one of the main reasons we have the 2nd amendment to begin with. Kind of hard to take criticism from over the pond seriously.

dead.cell said,

I didn't realize the Bible differed so drastically. Does God not flood the earth in your book, or did we just get the Michael Bay version?

It is a bit humorous when you look at the big picture. Great Britain is one of the main reasons we have the 2nd amendment to begin with. Kind of hard to take criticism from over the pond seriously.

Take note of 'these days.' But I suppose you're right, religion has caused more pain, suffering and death than anything else, and the Bible is indeed full of cruelty and menace.

And that whole thing about the independence was a financial practicality. You can't rely on an old bit of paper to rule you forever. Pretty sure that's what you tell some other people, too.

Ralph3100 said,

When someone is trying to kill you, death is a very appropriate response. If there is any other way, you will obviously take it. However, there often is not.

I reckon I should be thankful I don't have people wanting to kill me in my surroundings. I'll say, if that's an everyday concern for you, I truly empathise with you.

Jub Fequois said,

And that whole thing about the independence was a financial practicality. You can't rely on an old bit of paper to rule you forever. Pretty sure that's what you tell some other people, too.

That's a slippery slope though. Same could be said about freedom of speech...

deadonthefloor said,

You don't even need to go to the black market.
Just have someone who passes the check buy it for you.

Isn't that the definition of black market if you wouldn't pass the background check?

Jub Fequois said,

I reckon I should be thankful I don't have people wanting to kill me in my surroundings. I'll say, if that's an everyday concern for you, I truly empathise with you.

I never said it was an everyday concern. However, if the situation were to arise, then certain responses are required.

Jub Fequois said,

Guns were invented to kill, and that they do in a highly efficient manner. Surely death is not the purpose of self defence?

The purpose of self defence is to make an attacker stop doing whatever it is they are trying to do to you RIGHT NOW. You could use psychology - shout "boo!" (or aggressive profanity of your choice), or exceed their pain threshold and force them to change their mind - pepper spray, kick to the groin etc. If it works - you have achieved the objective.

Guns too can be a psychological deterrent, but if that plan fails then you need a physiological solution - literally stop the attacker with force. Only two ways to do that expediently (remember, I want them to stop RIGHT NOW, not in 30 minutes) - shut down the nervous system or cause a loss in blood pressure resulting in unconsciousness. The unfortunate part is that people sometimes die when you do that to them, but that's the attacker's problem, not mine.

joey_za said,

The purpose of self defence is to make an attacker stop doing whatever it is they are trying to do to you RIGHT NOW. You could use psychology - shout "boo!" (or aggressive profanity of your choice), or exceed their pain threshold and force them to change their mind - pepper spray, kick to the groin etc. If it works - you have achieved the objective.

Guns too can be a psychological deterrent, but if that plan fails then you need a physiological solution - literally stop the attacker with force. Only two ways to do that expediently (remember, I want them to stop RIGHT NOW, not in 30 minutes) - shut down the nervous system or cause a loss in blood pressure resulting in unconsciousness. The unfortunate part is that people sometimes die when you do that to them, but that's the attacker's problem, not mine.

I completely agree with you on your reasoning, but I still find it unlikely/surprising/shocking that you need to fear those situations, enough to own a gun (for the purpose of self defence). Over here you mostly have shady people doing violent things with other shady people. It's rather rare an innocent person is assaulted like that, unless you're a highly unfortunate bystander in a rare occurrence but in that case a gun wouldn't have done you any favours anyway.

Perhaps I just don't understand how dangerous it is in the States. :/

I think when Steve Ballmer refers to gun control, he's talking about more precise controls in first person shooters. As it is right now, it's very unregulated... some using keyboard and mouse, some using gamepads. More precision gun control is needed.

Yeah great, try to turn yet another right into a privilege. Pardon me if I have eyes and can already see how government has abused this power in the past and don't need the false sense of security it would supposedly provide by maybe eliminating a few crazies right along with who knows how many "legitimate" gun owners. If you don't understand or respect what the 2nd amendment truly means, this is what you do.

Oh, please. That's such a typical knee-jerk response to any mention of gun control. Requiring a background check to ensure that the person purchasing the weapon is legally allowed to own it does not infringe upon your rights in any way. If you go to a gun store, you're required to do this. Why should people be able to sell guns (unknowingly or knowingly) to criminals in private?

Grow up, the right to have a gun so you can shoot someone whenever you want to is total bs (and yes, that's where it is used for far to often). The rest of the world doesn't allow this and we are just fine.

Studio384 said,
Grow up, the right to have a gun SO YOU CAN SHOOT SOMEONE WHENEVER YOU WANT
You MIGHT be wrong on that...just a tad...maybe a smidgen

Disdain said,
Oh, please. That's such a typical knee-jerk response to any mention of gun control. Requiring a background check to ensure that the person purchasing the weapon is legally allowed to own it does not infringe upon your rights in any way. If you go to a gun store, you're required to do this. Why should people be able to sell guns (unknowingly or knowingly) to criminals in private?

I don't have a problem with background checks so long as they are expedient, fair, and don't include any sort of registration. Where rights are infringed is when attempts are made to track gun owners or document what they own. It's a first step to other more insidious things.

Studio384 said,
Grow up, the right to have a gun so you can shoot someone whenever you want to is total bs (and yes, that's where it is used for far to often). The rest of the world doesn't allow this and we are just fine.

This is a ridiculous straw-man. Hardly anyone who legally purchases a firearm does so with the intent to blow someone away who just looks at them crossways. You obviously have no more experience with gun owners than the inane dribble of supposed "open-carry advocates" who look to pick fights with cops and the manifestos of mass murdering f***heads who more often than not attain their weapons illegally.

Disdain said,
Oh, please. That's such a typical knee-jerk response to any mention of gun control. Requiring a background check to ensure that the person purchasing the weapon is legally allowed to own it does not infringe upon your rights in any way. If you go to a gun store, you're required to do this. Why should people be able to sell guns (unknowingly or knowingly) to criminals in private?

Is that like the knee-jerk reaction every time someone kills someone else with a gun? Always the fault of the gun, even the person holding it. Why don't we see the same knee-jerk reaction when someone kills someone else whilst drunk? What about knives? No rush to ban them, either.

If you don't like guns, DO NOT BUY ONE. So very simple.

ONCE AGAIN. There is no proposal to ban guns and not owning a gun doesn't mean you won't be affected by gun violence. I just understand why a simple background check is controversial to some people.

Studio384 said,
Grow up, the right to have a gun so you can shoot someone whenever you want to is total bs

I like how you say to grow up, yet appear to lack common knowledge often taught in grade school...

Probably because criminals WON'T be just waltzing into a gun store to buy a firearm...they will steal, kill for one, or buy one illegally off the street.

naap51stang said,
Probably because criminals WON'T be just waltzing into a gun store to buy a firearm...they will steal, kill for one, or buy one illegally off the street.

No, criminals follow the law. If you make a law saying "do not kill" or "do not steal" or "you cannot have guns", they will clearly follow this.

dead.cell said,

No, criminals follow the law. If you make a law saying "do not kill" or "do not steal" or "you cannot have guns", they will clearly follow this.

Then what's the point of having any criminal laws?

Studio384 said,
Grow up, the right to have a gun so you can shoot someone whenever you want to is total bs (and yes, that's where it is used for far to often). The rest of the world doesn't allow this and we are just fine.

And yet the Rest of the World is Moving to the US in droves. Please do not talk about our Gun Laws when you do not have the education and knowledge about why they are there.

Gun control in the USA is a highly political issue, regardless of whether it's a public safety issue.

Check out the "Real World Issues" sub-forum for examples of this (just don't stick around in there :p).

Mugwump00 said,
Why is this specifically political? Are all public-safety issues 'political' in the US?

Legally choosing a target is safer than being one.