If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WMAR)   Baltimore now requires all convicted gun offenders to register with police. Problem Solved (link fixed)   (abc2news.com) divider line 327
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

4338 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Oct 2007 at 7:15 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



327 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-10-01 08:52:35 PM
Gecko Gingrich
I fail to see the logic behind this law.


You know which of your neighbors not to piss off. Less police calls :P
 
2007-10-01 08:54:50 PM
Boojum2k: Yet you have that quote stated out-of-context as if it is somehow proof that Heinlein was anti-gun ownership.

I cited that quote to counter those who post Heinlein's best-known quote, "An armed society is a polite society," with the implication that he advocated arming everyone. If you're familiar with "Beyond This Horizon," the book from which said quote originates, then you know that the genetically-inferior "control naturals" were NOT allowed to own guns. Thus, the society Heinlein referred to was NOT completely armed. Yet, this quote has been cited out-of-context by the gun lovin' community for decades.
 
2007-10-01 08:55:08 PM
My prediction: this "registry" thing will expand as a way for police to work around those unpleasant "resonable doubt" and "double jeapordy" things that always roadblack speedy convictions. As a result of this system going out of control, one of two things will happen: 1) backlash gets the entire system scrubbed, reinstating the problems that caused the sex offender registry in the first place or 2) public will quietly acquiese, nullifying almost all parts of the constitution dealing with fair trial.

\Whoever wins, we lose
\\(Obscure?)
\\\Is comforted by total lack of hope for humanity
 
2007-10-01 08:58:01 PM
Churchill2004: groby: Well, public property is shared by us all.

Which means we all have equal right to use it, provided we don't infringe on the rights of others to do so. Carrying a gun doesn't stop anyone from enjoying or using the property.

but if the majority wants no guns in public places, then that should be an acceptable choice.

And if the majority wanted it mandatory to wear a purple shirt to use the sidewalks downtown? Majority rule is mob rule.

Or if you think that's just an absurd strawman, what if the majority wanted to make it mandatory for women to cover their heads on 'public property'? What about roads? Would it be acceptable for the majority to prohibit anyone from having a gun in their car?

there are a quite a few of gun incidents due to road rage

You're still talking about a statistically meaningless number of cases.


So you don't want majority rule? Ok then, now I am the minority in power, and I say that no one is allowed to wear sandals. That's right, death sentance to anyone who wears sandals from here on out, because you know who else wears sandals, that's right terrorists. Oh, you mean you only want minority rule when it benifits you. Got it.

Actually I tend to agree with you. What I think needs to be fought is group think brought on by slick advertising promoted by a minority, for their special interests....which if believed by enough ignorant people becomes the defacto majority. Basically what I am trying to say is this country has become intelectually lazy, and will follow whomever promises reward without effort. The whole "Follow me and I will make you comfortable and safe without any effort on your part" group. Personal responsibility has gone to shiat, and It will, if left unchecked, destroy our contry.
 
2007-10-01 08:58:29 PM
proteus_b: ultra

You may be right. I don't really know. I think it's worth debating though. About 30,000 US americans die from gunshot wounds each year. A la Lincoln: If I could save the 30,000 US americans by taking away everybody's gun, I would do it, and if I could save the 30,000 US americans by giving everybody 2 guns, I would do it.


What makes gun deaths special? Why are you willing to trample individual liberty to (theoretically) prevent gun deaths when you wouldn't ever dream of such a violation of liberty to prevent, say, car deaths.

Nobodyn0se: Cars are a privelege. Guns are a right.

Actually, using the government-owned roads is a privilege. You're free to own all the unregistered, uninsured cars you want and you're free to drive them without a license if you want. All the regulations only apply if you try to take it on the government-owned roads.

We don't. Most of us (including me) believe that if a person has demonstrated they are a law abiding citizen by going through an extensive background check, they should be able to carry a gun into MOST places.

Funny, because that's stricter gun-control than most states have.

99% of us think that's a place where there should be no guns, legal or otherwise.

What about the person who owns that establishment? What about cops? Off-duty cops?

We don't want everyone to carry a gun. We want people who
a. want to
b. are legally of age
c. pass a background check

to be able to carry guns in most places.


We? Got a frog in your pocket?

asmith993: But to say "a majority of cops are violent thugs"? Seriously now, common.

I see it way too often, and plenty of times I see police abuse that could only occur with the knowledge and consent of more than just a "small minority" of officers. Stuff like this. And then, invariably, I see all the cops in the offending police force rush to defend their fellow thug. Only when the media spotlight is unrelenting, and the facts are undeniable (usually only when they're recorded) will they give in.

Cops enforce laws that they did not create

That's no excuse.



If you want to take on bad laws, look at the legislature, which is voted in by.....wait for it......YOU, and me and everyone else. Want to instigate change? Show up to vote

And if you're in the minorty- screw you! Besides, I don't deny legislators share blame for bad laws. That doesn't excuse the cops who enforce them.

"I was ordered to" or "that's my job" is never an acceptable moral excuse. The principle is the same whether it's killing an innocent person in a drug raid or guarding the Jews at Auschwitz.
 
2007-10-01 08:58:59 PM
shrapnil77: Whoever wins, we lose

No, no one has ever seen that abortion of a movie. Gun control should be plugging Paul W.S. Anderson between the eyes for that.
 
2007-10-01 09:01:46 PM
Well I should do some serious things now, and depart this thread, but gun-nut or anti-gun-nut, we can all agree that the scene in Pennies from Heaven wherein the LA freeway passengers simultaneously fire guns into the air in their frustration with the traffic is quite humorous.

/except to people kilt by falling bullets, like the guy in "The Mexican", or some people in 'real life'
//but i'm neither of them
 
2007-10-01 09:02:43 PM
Churchill2004: guarding the Jews at Auschwitz

Now you've done it.
 
2007-10-01 09:02:58 PM
Lorelle: Thus, the society Heinlein referred to was NOT completely armed.

Heinlein referred to multiple societies in his works, and you haven't got the slightest clue what he actually advocated (which changed considerably over the years).

Go back to your circle jerk because you were able to find a seemingly anti-gun quote from a "libertarian" author.


asmith993: So you don't want majority rule?

For the vast majority of things, no. Neither did the men who wrote the Constitution.

Ok then, now I am the minority in power, and I say that no one is allowed to wear sandals

Good god, I don't think Evel Knievel could have made that leap. I don't care who's passing and enforcing such laws, and whether or not they're in the majority or have majority approval. It's wrong, period.


Oh, you mean you only want minority rule when it benifits you.

No, in such matters I don't want "rule" at all. There's no need for it. I never said anything about advocating "minority rule".
 
2007-10-01 09:03:42 PM
Lorelle: Most of my interests are in my profile, but I also enjoy astronomy, collecting irregular lingerie, and dissecting Bufo americanus specimens.

Excellent! I collect World War II items, my grandad was a field artillery battalion surgeon. I enjoy long walks on the beach, poetry, good novels, science (PhD in Bioengineering), currently in medical school, and my wife is an OBGYN. We like to collect WWII arms and current firearms. Obviously we're uneducated sheep?

/CHL
//Pro choice
///NRA member. LIFE
//LEGALIZE IT!
/3 cats, 2 dogs, No children (that I acknowledge)
 
2007-10-01 09:03:43 PM
ElLoco: Now you've done it.

I didn't compare the two, though. I simply applied a universal moral principle to both.
 
2007-10-01 09:04:37 PM
Churchill2004: Actually, using the government-owned roads is a privilege. You're free to own all the unregistered, uninsured cars you want and you're free to drive them without a license if you want. All the regulations only apply if you try to take it on the government-owned roads.


That's what I was implying. Thanks you for spelling it out.

Churchill2004: Funny, because that's stricter gun-control than most states have.

Um no, it's actually what most states do. Most states are "shall issue" states. Which means if someone passes a background check, the state must issue them a license to carry concealed. That's basically what I described, and is the law in most states. It is much less gun control than "May issue" states of "no issue" states.

Churchill2004: What about the person who owns that establishment? What about cops? Off-duty cops?

The person who owns that establishment, no idea. Depends on the laws of the state/city. Cops are given special rights in this society, including carrying a gun while on duty and the ability to go basically wherever they want with it, in exchange for more responsibilities (including training, education, loss of certain privacy rights, etc.).

Churchill2004: We? Got a frog in your pocket?


I meant responsible, sensible gun owners.
 
2007-10-01 09:05:11 PM
One more:

churchhill

What makes gun deaths special? Why are you willing to trample individual liberty to (theoretically) prevent gun deaths when you wouldn't ever dream of such a violation of liberty to prevent, say, car deaths

I think that's where you misread my earlier posts, perhaps? I AM dreaming of trampling the liberty with which motorists threaten my life daily. In fact, if I'm stricken with a terminal illness, I'll likely buy a gun and start shooting the people who drive on the shoulder of the road, oblivious to (or apathetic rather) the lives of bicyclists and pedestrians who SHARE the road.
 
2007-10-01 09:05:27 PM
Churchhill,

See it way to ofter, or notice it way to ofter. Violent crime has been declining in our country for years, and yet if you ask the average person what they think they practially think we are under siege. The better something gets, the more often you notice the bad. Pretend you are a Black person living in the deep south in 1962, no you are a black person living in the deep south today. Which one fears the police more?

As for the Holocaust comparison, look at the systems of government in place in each government. Now pretend you are an average person living under each system, who has more of a say. You in 2007 America, or you in 1943 Germsny/Poland et al. Does the comparison still hold up?
 
2007-10-01 09:06:01 PM
How about this... GOOGLECRIME! Enter keywords for your favorite crimes, enter your zipcode, get a list of everyone in your area convicted, suspected, investigated, or capable of committing that crime!

Then life will be SWEET!
 
2007-10-01 09:07:25 PM
Noticeably F.A.T.: TF sponsorship to anyone who can present to me a reasonable argument on how gun laws have made anyone safer. As far as I have seen, they have done nothing to prevent criminals from using guns, and only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own guns.

Gun bans make people in gun permitted areas safer, by encouraging criminals to leave behind those who own guns for the guaranteed victims in "gun free" zones.
 
2007-10-01 09:07:53 PM
Norgle:
Looks like it's time to play devil's advocate. Having the gun laws we currently do will probably not make us any safer. However, if we were to enact a strict ban on guns commonly used in crimes, the number of those guns used in crimes would decrease as it would become harder for them to buy those guns. By no means would the increased gun laws make it impossible for criminals to obtain illegal weapons, it would simply make those weapons more expensive for them to obtain, thus lowering the demand for those kinds of weapons. Would you rather the armed robber who beaks into your house have an AK-47 or a knife? Either could kill you, but your chances of survival are much higher with the knife. One could argue that criminals would simply pay the extra buck and obtain the guns anyway, yet those who commit crimes are usually in financial straights anyway and are unlikely to be able to afford black market purchases. The criminals who can afford high-end assault weapons would be the more successful criminal and would be likely to kill you with or without the gun. In the end, the gun laws aren't so much about decreasing crime as they are about decreasing the fatalities that result from crime.


So you get rid of commonly used guns. Now I can't legally own a cool gun, criminals move on to a different gun and so on until you ban all guns. Now I can't own any, and criminals still have the advantage, because you will never be able to completely get rid of guns. Why should my government be able to regulate how I defend myself anyway? Sure, you can say that if I am unarmed I will not be likely to put up a fight, and then less likely to be killed. But I am still out whatever was stolen. If you are not willing to stand up and defend what is yours, fine. But don't tell me that I cannot. It is MY choice to fight back, knowing I may be hurt or killed.

proteus_b:
"gun laws" includes the training and safety courses that gun owners are required to take, is it not? undoubtedly these courses reduce injuries/deaths related to accidental shootings.


1: No courses are required to own a gun. Only when permits to carry are required do you need to take any course. Here in CO I can open carry without any permit, and therefore no safety courses.
2: The basic courses required for a permit are the equivalent of drivers training courses. Very basic, easily forgotten, and don't go much beyond firearm safety. They don't go into how to actually use a gun for self defense, which is a lot more than knowing how to pull the trigger.

/Try again.
 
2007-10-01 09:10:34 PM
asmith993: Now pretend you are an average person living under each system, who has more of a say

Doesn't matter. The innocent person killed by the cops in 2007 America obviously didn't have enough of a say.

proteus_b: I think that's where you misread my earlier posts, perhaps? I AM dreaming of trampling the liberty with which motorists threaten my life daily. In fact, if I'm stricken with a terminal illness, I'll likely buy a gun and start shooting the people who drive on the shoulder of the road, oblivious to (or apathetic rather) the lives of bicyclists and pedestrians who SHARE the road.

I think I finally figured out why you're willing to ban guns- you're projecting. You think the rest of us are also violent sociopaths.


Um no, it's actually what most states do. Most states are "shall issue" states. Which means if someone passes a background check, the state must issue them a license to carry concealed. That's basically what I described, and is the law in most states. It is much less gun control than "May issue" states of "no issue" states.

It's mixed. Some states require a background check for a shall-issue permit, some don't. Vermont and Alaska doesn't require a permit at all to carry, either openly or concealed.
 
2007-10-01 09:10:47 PM
Gecko Gingrich: I fail to see the logic behind this law.

Especially since all the other laws passed by the ruling elite who run this state/city/county are so logical.
 
2007-10-01 09:13:32 PM
Nobodyn0se: The person who owns that establishment, no idea. Depends on the laws of the state/city. Cops are given special rights in this society, including carrying a gun while on duty and the ability to go basically wherever they want with it, in exchange for more responsibilities (including training, education, loss of certain privacy rights, etc.).

"Depends" is a cop-out. As for cops, I see no reason they should have any special privileges at all when it comes to carrying. Your average cop is no less dangerous with their gun that the average carrying citizen.

I meant responsible, sensible gun owners.

You mean those that think "shall not be infringed" means "as long as the person who wants to own a gun gets permission from the state".
 
2007-10-01 09:14:14 PM
People who use a firearm during the commission of a crime should get the death penalty, if convicted, regardless of said firearm being discharged or not. PERIOD.
This would nullify the need of a gun crime/criminal registry.
The reason violent crime is on the increase is because the punishment metted out is not severe enough to keep the criminals from repeating their crimes.
Or from keeping first time criminals from considering doing the crime.
The USA is becoming overpopulated with criminals who don't mind killing you for any reason.
 
2007-10-01 09:15:16 PM
Churchill2004 I have to hand to you, you have managed to stay on point, without resorting to taking the bait that was offered by several posters. I may not agree with you on all points, but making your points in an intelligent way goes over way better the the usually moronic post you see so often on Fark. Good job sir.
 
2007-10-01 09:16:21 PM
NightOwl2255: Churchill2004 I have to hand to you, you have managed to stay on point, without resorting to taking the bait that was offered by several posters. I may not agree with you on all points, but making your points in an intelligent way goes over way better the the usually moronic post you see so often on Fark. Good job sir.

;^) I try.
 
2007-10-01 09:16:26 PM
torquestripe: The USA is becoming overpopulated with criminals courts, juries and FARKers who don't mind killing you for any reason.
 
2007-10-01 09:16:45 PM
altinos:
Gun bans make people in gun permitted areas safer, by encouraging criminals to leave behind those who own guns for the guaranteed victims in "gun free" zones.


Touche. Even though that's the basic point I was making, one month for you.
 
2007-10-01 09:17:53 PM
Churchill2004: Heinlein referred to multiple societies in his works, and you haven't got the slightest clue what he actually advocated (which changed considerably over the years).

I was discussing one specific book, not the entire body of Heinlein's writings.

Go back to your circle jerk because you were able to find a seemingly anti-gun quote from a "libertarian" author.

Uh, I'm a woman, dude.

Why are you gun nuts so obsessed with jerking off?
 
2007-10-01 09:18:01 PM
Noticeably F.A.T.: Touche. Even though that's the basic point I was making, one month for you.

How about one month for me, or it's a bullet in your ass!
 
2007-10-01 09:21:09 PM
So, people who are convicted of a crime involving a gun now have more rights than a 20 year old who has sex with a 16 year old?

Niiiiice.

Sorry, but all this 2nd amendment stuff goes out the window once you've been convicted. Even if it doesn't do much (I understand that argument), this certainly isn't hurting law-abiding citizens in any way.

So why are you partisans getting your panties bunched up?
 
2007-10-01 09:23:21 PM
ultraholland:
How about one month for me, or it's a bullet in your ass!


I put my gun on right after my pants, and I don't scare easily. You gotta earn your TF.
 
2007-10-01 09:24:50 PM
Lorelle: I was discussing one specific book, not the entire body of Heinlein's writings.

"Beyond the Horizon" is hardly a discourse on Heinlein's vision of what society should be like. In fact the whole issue of guns is a mere sub-theme. The point is that your quote doesn't even come close to representing Heinlein's views on the subject of firearms, which is how you present it.

Uh, I'm a woman, dude.

I just expected such shenanigans to come from someone fueled by an adolescent surge of testosterone.
 
2007-10-01 09:24:59 PM
Churchill2004: You mean those that think "shall not be infringed" means "as long as the person who wants to own a gun gets permission from the state".


Hey, I'm all for carrying a gun in your home and maybe even in your car with no interference or licensing from the state. And with concealed carry permits, in shall issue states, it's not so much permission that they give you. The whole "you need the state's permission" argument should be made against may issue states, not shall issue state. In Shall issue, it's more like a formality you have to go through to be able to carry. The state has no real decision making abilities in the process. It's just "If you do a and b, you'll be able to carry a gun." There's no subjective decision to be made by any government agent.

Churchill2004: As for cops, I see no reason they should have any special privileges at all when it comes to carrying. Your average cop is no less dangerous with their gun that the average carrying citizen.

I must admit, I'm a little biased, being a criminal justice major, But for an example, cops are allowed to carry guns into bars while on duty because they aren't legally allowed to drink at those bars anyways. There is no chance of them getting drunk and doing something stupid.

And cops go through mush more training and examination than concealed carry holders in ANY state.That's why they get more priveleges.

Churchill2004: It's mixed. Some states require a background check for a shall-issue permit, some don't. Vermont and Alaska doesn't require a permit at all to carry, either openly or concealed.

The number of states that
1. Are not Shall issue

or

2. Do not require a background check

Are under ~15. MOST states are shall issue, and require a background check and a class.
 
2007-10-01 09:26:03 PM
Lorelle: Why are you gun nuts so obsessed with jerking off?

In his defence, who isn't?
 
2007-10-01 09:26:26 PM
churchhill

FAIL

When did I ever say I wanted to "ban" guns? I even said that I agree with you about who should have guns and carry them.

And yes, I think people who drive on the shoulder of the road are violent sociopaths. They are
1) violent (lot of momentum in that car. much more than in a slug)
2) sociopaths (they are consider 3 seconds of their life more important than the entire life of those they endanger)

/sorry about the threadjack
 
2007-10-01 09:29:03 PM
MrGumboPants: So, people who are convicted of a crime involving a gun now have more rights than a 20 year old who has sex with a 16 year old?

Niiiiice.

Sorry, but all this 2nd amendment stuff goes out the window once you've been convicted. Even if it doesn't do much (I understand that argument), this certainly isn't hurting law-abiding citizens in any way.

So why are you partisans getting your panties bunched up?


I agree, thats kinda messed up. And I get my panties bunched up because this is a topic I care greatly about, and I view this as chipping away at my rights. Sure, THIS law may not affect me, but it makes it easier so pass the next one that will. The constitution says "shall NOT be infringed", not "shall not be infringed, unless".
 
2007-10-01 09:29:16 PM
Nobodyn0se: There is no chance of them getting drunk and doing something stupid.

In theory.

And cops go through mush more training and examination than concealed carry holders in ANY state.That's why they get more priveleges.

I guess it must be all that training that's responsible for a police officer being 4 times as likely to kill an innocent person if they draw their gun than a civilian drawing their carry weapon.



The number of states that
1. Are not Shall issue

or

2. Do not require a background check

Are under ~15. MOST states are shall issue, and require a background check and a class.


Fine. The point is that the idea that not requiring a background check or a permit is somehow a "fringe, lunatic" movement is rebuked by the fact that that "crazy" view is already law in some states.

If you lived in Vermont, would you support overturing that state's no-permit-required policy?
 
2007-10-01 09:32:23 PM
Norgle:
Would you rather the armed robber who beaks into your house have an AK-47 or a knife? Either could kill you, but your chances of survival are much higher with the knife.

The correct answer here is false.

Of those assault victims who survive long enough to reach a hospital, it is far more likely that a person will survive wounds caused by a firearm than those caused by a knife. This is due to many factors, including speed of blood loss, localized tissue damage, and most E.R. doctors generally being more familiar with trauma caused by ballistics.

In addition, within its range (which you will more likely than not be when inside a home), a knife never jams or runs out of ammunition. It can always be used as long as it remains in the assailant's hand.

On the downside, one would not want to rely on a knife for personal defense from an attacker because close range fighting is very dangerous -- not only because you are within touching range of an attacker, but fights at that range almost always involve transfers of bodily fluids and tissues, like sweat and blood. It would be a crappy way to contract Hepatitis or HIV.

The best options for self-defense within a home are either a 20-gauge shotgun or a .38 handgun. Either weapon will produce less-than-deafening levels of noise, and less-blinding muzzle flash than higher powered firearms.
 
2007-10-01 09:33:23 PM
Churchill2004: I guess it must be all that training that's responsible for a police officer being 4 times as likely to kill an innocent person if they draw their gun than a civilian drawing their carry weapon.


I would LOVE to see the statistics on this.

Churchill2004: Fine. The point is that the idea that not requiring a background check or a permit is somehow a "fringe, lunatic" movement is rebuked by the fact that that "crazy" view is already law in some states.

Whoa, I never said anyone was a lunatic or crazy. I think it's great that some states do that, I just don't think it's overbearing to ask for a background check or a class.

Churchill2004: If you lived in Vermont, would you support overturing that state's no-permit-required policy?

Of course not. If they want to have a no permit law, that's great. But if they DID change the law to require a permit, I wouldn't complain.
 
2007-10-01 09:34:59 PM
autopsybeverage: a .38 handgun.

I hate .38s. It seems the only guns chambered in .38 are tiny little revolvers. I don't like revolvers, and I have gigantic hands that can't control small guns well. Give me my 1911 anyday.
 
2007-10-01 09:35:26 PM
autopsybeverage: On the downside, one would not want to rely on a knife for personal defense from an attacker because close range fighting is very dangerous -- not only because you are within touching range of an attacker, but fights at that range almost always involve transfers of bodily fluids and tissues, like sweat and blood. It would be a crappy way to contract Hepatitis or HIV.

The best options for self-defense within a home are either a 20-gauge shotgun or a .38 handgun. Either weapon will produce less-than-deafening levels of noise, and less-blinding muzzle flash than higher powered firearms.


Why not split the difference? M590A1. Mossberg 12 gauge with a bayonet lug... that should cover all points.
 
2007-10-01 09:37:38 PM
Nobodyn0se: autopsybeverage: a .38 handgun.

I hate .38s. It seems the only guns chambered in .38 are tiny little revolvers. I don't like revolvers, and I have gigantic hands that can't control small guns well. Give me my 1911 anyday.


Any .357 will fire .380 ammo. My Ruger GP100 is by no means a small gun, but I can target shoot with cheaper 38 special.
 
2007-10-01 09:38:57 PM
Noticeably F.A.T.: Any .357 will fire .380 ammo.

Eh. Still don't like revolvers much.
 
2007-10-01 09:39:55 PM
Churchill2004: "Beyond the Horizon" is hardly a discourse on Heinlein's vision of what society should be like. In fact the whole issue of guns is a mere sub-theme. The point is that your quote doesn't even come close to representing Heinlein's views on the subject of firearms, which is how you present it.

The quote is from "Stranger in a Strange Land." Pay attention, dude.

I just expected such shenanigans to come from someone fueled by an adolescent surge of testosterone.

Your obvious anger over seeing that quote in my profile is indicative of too much testosterone. Lighten up.

FarkTastic229: Obviously we're uneducated sheep?

One needn't be uneducated to adopt the sheep mentality.
 
2007-10-01 09:40:04 PM
Nobodyn0se: Whoa, I never said anyone was a lunatic or crazy. I think it's great that some states do that, I just don't think it's overbearing to ask for a background check or a class.

You implied I wasn't a "reasonable, responsible gun owner".

Of course not. If they want to have a no permit law, that's great. But if they DID change the law to require a permit, I wouldn't complain.

In other words, the fact that a law is completely unnecessary isn't enough for you to oppose it.


I would LOVE to see the statistics on this.

I don't really keep a file on such things. You're free to Google away and prove me right/wrong.
 
2007-10-01 09:40:54 PM
Lorelle: The quote is from "Stranger in a Strange Land." Pay attention, dude.

"An armed society is a polite society" is from Beyond the Horizon.

Lighten up.

Fair enough.
 
2007-10-01 09:42:55 PM
ultraholland: torquestripe: The USA is becoming overpopulated with criminals courts, juries and FARKers who don't mind killing you for any reason.
Is their any crime someone in the USA has been executed for in the last 40 years that did not involve someone else being killed during the crime? I really want to know.
 
2007-10-01 09:43:23 PM
Churchill2004: You implied I wasn't a "reasonable, responsible gun owner".

No, I implied most reasonable, responsible gun owners disagree with you. MOst, not all.

Churchill2004: In other words, the fact that a law is completely unnecessary isn't enough for you to oppose it.

Who says it's unnecccesary? Just because it works in those places doesn't mean it would work in all places. You really can't use Vermont and Alaska to extrapolate to the rest of the country.
 
2007-10-01 09:43:45 PM
Good. These offenders all basically owned illegal/unregistered guns and committed crimes with them. How is this different than any other probation?

This doesn't mean they should bar upstanding citizens from getting a CCW, like they currently do.
 
2007-10-01 09:43:56 PM
Nobodyn0se:
Eh. Still don't like revolvers much.


Fair enough. Just a knee-jerk defense of a perceived dissing of my gun.
 
2007-10-01 09:45:16 PM
Noticeably F.A.T.: Just a knee-jerk defense of a perceived dissing of my gun.

Understandable. A friend once dissed my 1911.

I pissed in his cereal.
 
2007-10-01 09:47:08 PM
Nobodyn0se: You really can't use Vermont and Alaska to extrapolate to the rest of the country.

I asked you if you would oppose changing Vermont's no-permit-required-to-carry policy. You said no. So, my statement that being entirely unnecessary isn't enough reason for you to oppose a law is true.

I'm curious what it is you think is so unusual about Vermont that doesn't apply to the rest of the country. (I understand Alaska) Sure, there's the lack of big cities, but a lot of states lack big cities.

Better yet- what is it that background checks prevent that doesn't need to be prevented in Vermont?
 
Displayed 50 of 327 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report