uidzero: Boobies get me excited.

And no, that wasn't the filter. ;)

priestrape Thanks for accepting my apology.
Dumbasses may be "ruining" it for the rest of us, but taking my guns away would seriously affect my lifestyle. I could not safely do the things I do every day without firearms. In one hour, after my wife gets home from work, we will be hiking up to some obscure glacier that we haven't seen yet (called Saddleback I think). it's about a 4 mile hike and there are tons of bears, tons. A group of 4 hikers got charged there by a sow two weeks ago, but it turned out to be a false charge and they didn't have to shoot her. That's just one tiny example. When I go fishing for salmon I am competing with bears for those fish, and I often see bears while I am out there. Should these activities be off limits to me unless I am willing to die or be mauled?

Hmm. Can we all agree that I_Make_Jebus_Cry is a moron and just have a real discussion, now?

I like actually talking with some of you other folks...

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Alternatively: when unmarked bullets are outlawed, only outlaws will use unmarked bullets.

Conclusion: therefore if there's a murder and the bullet is marked, it's not a crime, and if it isn't marked, it is a crime!
Logic?!?!
Duh!?!?

Yeah, this decree is as useless as that little train of thought.

theprinceofwands
what specifically too cumbersome?
Protected-key security seems like the right answer to our problem here; I'm just going to assume that you haven't seen the right example of personal identification keys.

Criminals could 'jam' signals containing private keys; and governments would remotely disable our guns...I have to say that those are the exact types of retarded arguments I expected to see. Have fun with the rest of your gun-control thread.

"I have not said and would not say that a gun has never been used beneficially. I said it doesn't have a beneficial place in society IE it does WAYYYYY more harm than good."

And to assert this, you have engaged in stereotyping and scaremongering of the first order, which are classic hallmarks of a weak argument. If you are right, then show it with arguments based in logic, not emotion.

Time to get some business taken care of. Goodbye farkers.

Jebus, you know the right thing to do with the your rifle, just use your big toe.

Regardless of the statistics, cars are manufactured for the purpose of transporting people while guns are manufactured for the purpose of killing (be it animals, protection, etc.)


again...what about the guns that I own that are designed SPECIFICALLY for target shooting only?

Also, please quote the constitutional amendment that guarantees your right to own a car. The 2nd amendment clearly guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

uidzero

I have not said and would not say that a gun has never been used beneficially. I said it doesn't have a beneficial place in society IE it does WAYYYYY more harm than good.


According to the National Self Defense Survey there are about 2.5 million defensive gun uses by civilians per year in the United States.

This study was conducted by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.

This study has yet to be refuted.


2.5 million time per year civilians use guns to protect themselves. Sure sounds like a lot of good to me.

Korovyov: Good point, vis-a-vis gun-suicides.

Why not just have public suicide booths a la Futurama?

uidzero: You are in full support of completely legalizing all drugs, dropping licensing of vehicles (after all, you may judge your eyes are too poor to be driving, but let me decide if MINE are, even though we have the same lens prescription)...

I don't know about him, but I am. If you exercise poor judgement and commit a crime because of your bad eyesight or your inability to use drugs without entering a state that leads to you breaking the law, then, and only then, should we lock you up.

Off topic
Pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other dog.
/Off topic

Do you own a fire extinguisher? Why? Are you expecting a fire? Or do you have some sort of left-over juvenile desire to play fireman, a private macho image of rushing into a burning building to save a child? Don't you know that improperly used, a fire extinguisher can be dangerous to yourself and others? And there have been "studies" done that show people who own fire extinguishers are actually more careless with fire risks, thinking that they'll always be able to resort to their fire extinguisher to solve the problem. Besides, firefighters are always right there when you need them, and can put out any fire for you, so there's no point in having your own fire extinguisher.

How about an emergency first-aid kit? Do you have one of those? Why? Are you expecting to injure yourself? Or do you have some sort of left-over juvenile desire to play doctor, a private macho image of saving someone from bleeding to death with an improvised tourniquet? Don't you know that improperly used, medical supplies and equipment can be dangerous to yourself and others? And there have been "studies" done that show people who own first-aid kits are actually more careless in general, thinking that they'll always be able to resort to their medical supplies to repair any injury they sustain. Besides, Emergency Medical Technicians or doctors are always right there when you need them, and can instantly patch you up if you get injured, so there's no point in having your own first-aid kit.

Are these responses to being prepared absurd? Yeah. But they are exactly the sorts of responses I get when people find out I have a permit for carrying a concealed weapon, and generally carry a pistol whenever and wherever I can legally do so. And my experience is not at all unusual - most gun owners encounter the same sort of reaction from non-gun owners. We're asked if we're expecting to have a shoot-out in the supermarket. We're asked if we have some childish fantasy about playing cops & robbers. We're told that if we want to play with guns and shoot people that we should join the military. We're confronted with facts that guns are inherently dangerous to ourselves and others, and that "studies" have shown that owning a gun makes it more likely that we will behave in such a fashion as to need to resort to using one to get us out of a dangerous situation. And besides, there's always a cop around when you need one, just to protect you, so there's no need to have a weapon for self defense.

Are there gun owners who think that carrying a weapon makes them invincible, and they therefore go around with a chip on their shoulder, putting themselves in dangerous situations thinking that they can always whip out their pistol and escape? Yeah, probably. But that is no more the typical mindset of a gun owner than is the notion that someone who owns a fire extinguisher is going to be careless with fire risks. Are guns inherently dangerous, and if used improperly present a threat to the owner and anyone else in the vicinity? Definitely. Which is why anyone who carries a weapon has a responsibility (usually mandated by law in the state which issued their concealed carry permit) to know how to safely handle and use a firearm, how to safely store it, and when it can be legally used in defense of self or another. And are there gun owners who think that they're some kind of auxiliary police force, ready to jump in and right any criminal wrong they see being committed? Yup. In fact, a lot of people who legally carry a firearm do so precisely because there are situations where intervening could save the life of a loved one, a friend or even a stranger. But that doesn't mean that they are wanna-be cops. Rather, they're just trying to help contribute to their own safety and the safety of others. The police, firefighters and EMTs can't be everywhere. We do have a responsibility to protect ourselves, to make prudent preparations in the event of an unexpected turn of events. That means having a fire extinguisher handy in case of a fire. It means having a first aid kit, and knowing some basic medical skills for dealing with an emergency. And for me it means having a gun available as a tool for self protection. Your level of comfort with how you are prepared for what situations may well be different, but that does not mean that my decision, and the decision of millions of other Americans, to legally and safely carry a concealed weapon is wrong or paranoid.

A gun saved my life twice. I never knew anyone who was shot.

I had ex gf who was stabbed to death though.

Why not ban kitchen knives?

More women are killed by their husbands by kitchen knives than guns.

\Is being able to cut food worth people's lives.
\ what about the CHILDREN?

theprinceofwands
what specifically too cumbersome?
Protected-key security seems like the right answer to our problem here; I'm just going to assume that you haven't seen the right example of personal identification keys.

Criminals could 'jam' signals containing private keys; and governments would remotely disable our guns...I have to say that those are the exact types of retarded arguments I expected to see. Have fun with the rest of your gun-control thread.

I've seen rfid units on test weapons and so far they increase the size/bulk of the weapon somewhat. That's not a big deal on rifles or even full size duty weapons, but on my little concealed carry piece it creates an issue.

Last time I checked the only thing an improved security system has ever done is make better thieves and criminals. Better copy protection has spawned better copying software. Better encryption for wireless connections has brought better eavesdropping technology. The same would hold true here. The underground/bad guys will always beat the lawful/good guys in things like this. Always. It might weed out the amateurs, but that's all.

Please tell me why the last two arguments are invalid so that I can respond appropriately.

This is a stupid idea. It would be much smarter to embed RFID tags in the weapon in a way that it couldn't be removed without destroying the weapon.

That way, whenever a person carries a concealed weapon into a public place, law enforcement would be aware of it.

I_Make_Jebus_Cry:

To reiterate: You're a moron and nobody likes you. Posting long tirades that other people wrote without attribution doesn't help your case.

Please fark off and die.

I gotta take my fat ass to the gym, but this thread has been interesting.
See everyone in the next flamewar, where you will probably be suprised at the position I take if you like to pigeonhole people based on single issues.
Good luck.

uidzero:
You are in full support of completely legalizing all drugs, dropping licensing of vehicles (after all, you may judge your eyes are too poor to be driving, but let me decide if MINE are, even though we have the same lens prescription), etc etc

Anarchy is lunacy :)

Didn't you already get you hyperbole-laden ass handed to you earlier in the thread?

But since you asked...
Drugs should be legalized. As it is, they are more harmful to society if they are illicit. How/why do you think gangs buy guns in the first place? Legalize it and tax the hell out of it like tobacco. Give everyone a tax break.

Licensing vehicles, I'm against, licensing drivers, not against. Maybe for cars a one-time purchased plate that you pay a set fee for, and can transfer to other cars you buy throughout life for a significantly smaller processing fee. I'm tired of paying an arbitrary, slightly higher tax because I choose to drive a Pontiac in my state. On the other hand, I have no problem with state government assuring that drivers have some idea what they're doing on a road they share with thousands of other drivers every day.

I will consider taking gun control seriously when all those "idiots" who are criminals can't get a gun.

Until that I will NEED my gun and keep it safe. If everyone was a model citizen we would not need guns to defend ourselves. But in the same perfect world it would not matter if we all had guns cause we were all model citizens and would never use them in a fassion that would require laws to tell us how to use them.

Yea yea I have heard all the bad things that have happened around guns. But you know what none of us have heard about? All the guns out there that don't have bad things happen around them. They far out number the the ones with a bad history.

If you are going to pass a good gun law make it illegal for convited criminals to have guns!!!!!

Oh Wait it is illegal for them to have a gun. Maybe we should just find a better way to enforce the laws we have and not bother creating more laws that only the law abiding citizens try to follow.

tphillips
That way, whenever a person carries a concealed weapon into a public place, law enforcement would be aware of it.

Cops are well aware that people carry concealed firearms, more often than not they do it legally.

In 46 states it is legal to carry a firearm concealed about your person, provided you have a permit to do so. Two more states don't even require a permit. That leaves only two that don't allow concealed weapons.

Are you scared now? You shouldn't be.

I hope this lands in the same place as the IL bill that would make any gun over .50" bore illegal. Best part it did not make any amends for shotguns. If you wanted to hunt you would have to use a .410 of a 28 only.

Ya it got killed.

Oh PLEASE pass this law. My pre-ban teflon coated frangibles are already worth a shiatload from the ban in the 80's. I can't wait to see how much they'll be worth now.

tphillips
That way, whenever a person carries a concealed weapon into a public place, law enforcement would be aware of it.

I have an issue with this, both privately and as someone that had to interract with the public and law enforcement for a job.

While many police are calm and collected, there are always those (especially rookies and those who have been involved in shootings) who get nervous around weapons. I don't need someone to decide that I'm a threat because I have a gun on me and end up over-reacting and getting one of us hurt.

Also, registration is frequently a precursor to confiscation. It's better that people don't know if I have a gun, or how many, or where they are. Especially the criminal element.

Some states are "right to carry states" you may carry a gun as long as it is "NOT" concealed, or if you have a concealed carry permit you may carry consealed.

And if you are unfortunate enought to be accosted some day may you be fortunate enough to be around some law abiding citizen with a gun to protect you.

Guns suck - and so do the people who use them.

Guns are for pussies.

KrispyKringle


being snarky on the internet is pointless. You are still just an anonymous jerk.

Eh... cant hurt. thats for sure.

I_Make_Jebus_Cry:

Yep. And what are you going to do about it with those big cajones of yours, tough guy? Shoot me?

/bored
//Weren't you going to show me a quote of mine proving I said something I said I never said?

uidzero: Anarchy is lunacy :)

So is trust in authority, since you insist on bringing up anarchy. Quite frankly, for all your posturing, I have no reason to believe that you are more intelligent or more moral a person than I am. In fact, I have good reason (by my standards) to consider you my moral inferior since you want other people to be controlled, and I think everybody should leave everybody else well enough alone.

Don't be so willing to trust in authority. No law, no police officer, no government can save you from somebody bent on committing a crime against you. It's your life; you own it, so it's your responsibility to preserve it. You would be remiss in your responsibility to yourself and to others (since you expect others to risk their lives to protect yours) around you if you insist on remaining defenseless.

noeljb: And if you are unfortunate enought to be accosted some day may you be fortunate enough to be around some law abiding citizen with a gun to protect you.

Why should I protect somebody who isn't willing to protect himself? Should I risk my own life (which I value fairly highly) to protect somebody who places so little value on his own life that he chooses to go unarmed and defenseless?

KrispyKringle

I'm not the one pretending to be a tough guy. I'm not the one saying "guns are for pussies" or eluding to the fact that using your fists against an armed assailant makes you a "tough guy."

I admit it. I'm not tough enough to face an armed attacker without a gun. Then again, I'm more likely to survive.

KrispyKringle

Oh, and I'm also not the one trying to apply a cost/benefit analysis to try and say that cars DONT kill more people than guns. You claim to be using this tactic to have a 'civilized debate' when in fact all you are doing is ignoring the raw statistics.

You have tried to skew the facts from your very Weeners.

You are a moron, and nobody likes you. Fark off and die.

Regarding RFID, PINS, or other devices to make sure only an authorized user can fire a particular handgun.

If you consider that most people own handguns do so for personal protection, a device meant to keep an unauthorized user from firing the gun could very well keep an authorized user from firing it as well.

The more complex you make something, the greater the chance the device will fail.

Such devices will not be foolproof. What would an acceptable rate of failure for such "safety" devices be? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? You already have the chance that a round will misfire, failure to feed, or some other problem renders the gun useless. Do you really want to add another point of failure.

I'd wager a hefty sum that better than 90% of cops wouldn't voluntarily carry a gun with such features. Not that they'd have to since law enforcement will be exempted from having to use a "personalized" gun.

Oddly enough Cops could conceivably benefit from this sort of technology more than the average citizen. Reportedly more cops are killed with their duty weapon than by a weapon carried by criminal suspects.

Now if someone goes postal, I think it's pretty cool that their name will be officially stamped on it.

The general populace (me included) don't need guns for self-defense. I'm more likely to shoot a relative than a robber.

On the other hand, if you're a hobbyist shooter enjoy target practicing and keep your guns unloaded and safely locked away, I see no harm.

I_Make_Jebus_Cry

And your solution of passing more laws to ban MORE shiat kinda puts you squarely in the dumbass category as well.

Is that your solution to everything in life? Your neighbor blows his leaves onto your yard....you get a law passed against it?

Yes, that is obviously exactly what I'm saying. I hope you're reading comprehension was better when you read your gun manual.

uidzero

"The idea wasn't that they had a hardon for guns like all the insecure gun-freaks of today. The idea was to be able to fight off a tyranical government. That's over now."


hahahaha I cant believe you said that. What hole have you been living in for the last several years?

But seriously, If your ever in the situation as it seems you will likely be (considering your past history of being robbed), of having your house broken into by some drug addled nut/nuts who may have a knife or a gun, intent on getting as much money and valuables from you and your family no matter what it takes. Surrendering your valuables may not satisfy the intruder/s. As tough as you may be... Good luck with that.

Speaking from experience, ill take my gun. Ill take it over a knife, a bat, a golf club, a can of mace or a cast iron frying pan. So until they have my personal bullet proof, flame retardent, bubble wrap suit made up for me ill hang onto my gun.


Owner of 9 Firearms. Only owned hunting rifles until my home was burglarized while my family and I were home. Now I have a handgun as well.

I_Make_Jebus_Cry: I didn't say half the things you claim I did.

But that's OK. Reading comprehension is also for pussies, right?

And I already told you to fark off and die. You can't use that one back on me. I claim it.

And just how long will it take someone to alter the serial number that is eteched on a casing to a number other than the gun that fired it.

I'm a guessin' two weeks.

SpectroBoy
It's to bad so many Democrats and liberal types are hung up pursuing gun control instead of addressing the real problems (like you mention above). I think a lot of people who vote republican are responding to fear of gun grabbers like the Clintons.

Just how many of your guns did the Clinton's take?
Also you must have not noticed all that economic prosperity and lowering of crime rates during the 90's.

You have a sound argument but your facts are lacking.

/Democrat and liberal type
//thinks this decree sounds stupid

sdtangler

The general populace (me included) don't need guns for self-defense. I'm more likely to shoot a relative than a robber.

If you mean you personally, well I don't know cause I don't know you.

However if you are referring to an oft quoted statistic from around the 80s that gun owners are n to x times more likely to shoot a relative or aquaintence than an intruder. That statement is only partially true, is not the entire story.

What is an aquaintence?
Does the guy you buy or sell drugs from count, or maybe a rival gang member, or other person you know from whatever involvement in criminal activity you might have? In this "statistic" those kinds of people count as aquaintences.


What about all those times people protect themselves merely by showing a gun and either apprehend the suspect or run them off? They didn't shoot the guy but they did protect life and limb. These people don't count in this statistic.

ComicBookGuy

I have no idea. I didn't even know it was cg until I posted it

The reason is simple, pick a semi rural very poor area, doesnt matter where, race is unimportant, geography is unimportant, all that is important is that the local government is poor, the population is spread out over a lot of land, and they are too poor to own lots of firearms or to have fotified homes. Then if you are a terrorist you and about ten buddies get in a few white vans or suvs and you drive around the community. at every third or fourth home you rush the house, bash open the doors and kill everyone in side before they have time to react or call for help. DO this to ten or twenty homes then dump the vans where your personal cars anre parked and just drive away into the night.

THe local police will be overwhelmed and unable to catch you. There is no such thing as a rapid response military unit that could intervene, and if you are fast enough the homeowners wont be able to put up a fight. you could spread terror in small communities all across the country in a few days.

The only thing that could stop you would be an armed and organized population. There would have to be a community wide alert system that would call every home and warn them to get their guns and be alert.

PS this would also cut down on drug related killings....if dealers had to worry about armed organized people suddenly pouring out into the street every time a gunshot is heard....

Paranoid much?

/Didn't realize we were basing our arguments off of fantasy
/Does this count as publicizing plans for a terrorist attack?
/Apparently i need to buy a gun, or else i will be slaughted by islamo....whats the term. Oh Islamo-fascist.
/Much different than Caucasia-nutbag

The other night a huge storm blew through. It forced open our front door, but we were asleep and didn't hear it.

My wife got up around midnight to turn off a light in the kitchen. She found a man sitting on the floor of our living room, trying to work the remote. I don't know who he was, nor did I care. I told him to get the fark out of my house.
He took his sweet time leaving, even with my .38 pointed at his chest. Being buck naked, I don't think I could've made him leave if I didn't have my handgun. Since that night, I am glad for my right to own a gun, and proud of my ability to keep sound judgement in a suprisingly scary situation. It can be done. Only idiots and criminals kill people.

Hah... I use a revolver when robbing banks, so this should have no effect on me.