Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(NBC News)   Senators say that the NRA is ready to cave on background checks. Anyone felt their hands recently?   (firstread.nbcnews.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, NRA, Democrats, background checks, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 12-step programs, gun registry, Chuck Schumer, NBC News  
•       •       •

5116 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 10:06 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



499 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-13 04:21:31 PM  

heypete: Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: you just misunderstand everything we tell you.

Also, to make sure I'm not misunderstanding: most of the time when people say they keep their guns in a safe, it's not really a safe, more like a locker.

Because my buddy who's into guns keeps his in a safe, and it looks like this:[images.cabelas.com image 262x380]

But when guys like you and dittybopper talk about a safe, you're talking more about something like this, right?

[images.cabelas.com image 221x525]

Actually, both of those are roughly equal in terms of security. If they have a security rating at all, they're likely rated as a "residential security container", which means that they can resist attack by basic hand tools for no more than 5 minutes.

I've actually owned very similar lockers/safes as those that you mention: both have 10-12 gauge sheet steel. The Cannon C23 I owned was basically a bigger version of the locker + drywall for fire resistance + a fancy wheel and bolts. It weighed about 550 pounds. There isn't really any difference in terms of security.

Pretty much any retail "gun safe" is no more secure than the locker you mention. Their primary purpose is deterring the curious and protecting their contents against fire.

Now, one of these is a different story: they weigh more than a ton and a half (with one model weighing more than two tons, while another weighs more than three tons), are rated to withstand power tools for up to 30 minutes.


I had a long winded answer typed out, but I closed my tab on accident. I'm glad. Your answer is better.
 
2013-03-13 04:26:38 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray:

Except that you couldn't do it. And yes, no guns that were registered prior to the 1992 ban were confiscated.

Then where did the $1.3 Million go, since that money could only be payed out to firearms registered in accordance with the 1989 ban.  Are you suggesting that money was embezzled?

Again, is it legal to own a detachable magazine SKS in California if it is registered in accordance with the 1989 ban?  No.  How can that be...  You keep insisting that it is...

justtray:
Also the bolded part never happened, at least not in that order, so that's moot as well. Thanks for the bonus false equivilency, I just chose to ignore that because it is stupid.

So, the State of California didn't send out letters telling people to turn in their firearms or risk criminal prosecution, then provide compensation if they did?

Oh... You're going to hate this then...

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer1.gif

That's the letter for one of the unregistered confiscations.  The ones you claim were the only ones that happened.  You might want to read Paragraph 3:

"Unlike the SKS Sporter Buy-back Program which we will be starting shortly, no reimbursement is authorized in exchange for reliquishing assault weapons registered after the March 30, 1992 deadline."

Oh opps, yeah, that's proof that the SKS rifles registered in complaince with the 1989 ban were also confiscated.  Sucks when your position gets crushed by official letterhead doesn't it?


Wow you still cant admit you were wrong huh?

You realize you presented no proof or facts here right? Just you continuing your cognitive dissonance to falsely assert your belief.

They're illegal to own now, no guns registered between 1989 and 1992 were ever confiscated.

As to the other point, again I am correct. Requiring a forced buyback is not the same as threatening to put someone in jail, then saying they have to sell them back to the government. The order is important in your argument that i was admittedly being pedantic about, to counter your pedantry and ignorance on the SKS topic.
 
2013-03-13 04:27:03 PM  

redmid17: I had a long winded answer typed out, but I closed my tab on accident. I'm glad. Your answer is better.


Thanks. :)

You might be interested in this video. Sure, it's a bit of marketing from a high-end, high-security safe company but it demonstrates how easily one can break into a regular "gun safe". (Interesting bits start around 2:30)

Bolting the safe or locker to the wall will slow down the criminals a bit, as will having it in an area that prevents as much leverage from being applied, but "gun safes" offer surprisingly little security benefits from thieves. If they had an angle grinder or an axe, the criminals could get in a bit faster.
 
2013-03-13 04:29:55 PM  

heypete: redmid17: I had a long winded answer typed out, but I closed my tab on accident. I'm glad. Your answer is better.

Thanks. :)

You might be interested in this video. Sure, it's a bit of marketing from a high-end, high-security safe company but it demonstrates how easily one can break into a regular "gun safe". (Interesting bits start around 2:30)

Bolting the safe or locker to the wall will slow down the criminals a bit, as will having it in an area that prevents as much leverage from being applied, but "gun safes" offer surprisingly little security benefits from thieves. If they had an angle grinder or an axe, the criminals could get in a bit faster.


Holy crap. 1:41 with two guys and some pry bars. Also love how they dressed them up in black hoodies, for effect I;m sure
 
2013-03-13 04:29:58 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray:

Except that you couldn't do it. And yes, no guns that were registered prior to the 1992 ban were confiscated.

Then where did the $1.3 Million go, since that money could only be payed out to firearms registered in accordance with the 1989 ban.  Are you suggesting that money was embezzled?

Again, is it legal to own a detachable magazine SKS in California if it is registered in accordance with the 1989 ban?  No.  How can that be...  You keep insisting that it is...

justtray:
Also the bolded part never happened, at least not in that order, so that's moot as well. Thanks for the bonus false equivilency, I just chose to ignore that because it is stupid.

So, the State of California didn't send out letters telling people to turn in their firearms or risk criminal prosecution, then provide compensation if they did?

Oh... You're going to hate this then...

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer1.gif

That's the letter for one of the unregistered confiscations.  The ones you claim were the only ones that happened.  You might want to read Paragraph 3:

"Unlike the SKS Sporter Buy-back Program which we will be starting shortly, no reimbursement is authorized in exchange for reliquishing assault weapons registered after the March 30, 1992 deadline."

Oh opps, yeah, that's proof that the SKS rifles registered in complaince with the 1989 ban were also confiscated.  Sucks when your position gets crushed by official letterhead doesn't it?


I hope this puts you to rest. You are wrong.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/californiademandsaksri f les.htm

Many owners of fixed-magazine SKS rifles later converted them to removable-magazine models. At the time, the Attorney General (who is not the current AG) wrote a letter to these gun owners assuring them that these rifles were perfectly legal and not subject to the gun confiscation order.

In 1996, a man owning one of these converted rifles was arrested in Santa Clara County and prosecuted by the District Attorney for possessing an illegal firearm. The case wound its way to the state Supreme Court where a decision was finally handed down: yes, indeed, these rifles are illegal, the court said.

This ruling created instant criminals. Barankin told Y2KNEWSWIRE, "So what we had in 1997 was, by judicial ruling, a law that says all these people who had been informed that these weapons were legal were now suddenly felons."
 
2013-03-13 04:34:51 PM  

redmid17: Holy crap. 1:41 with two guys and some pry bars. Also love how they dressed them up in black hoodies, for effect I;m sure


Well, yeah. They're criminals. All criminals dress in hoodies, don't you know? :)
 
2013-03-13 04:35:14 PM  

justtray: You realize you presented no proof or facts here right? Just you continuing your cognitive dissonance to falsely assert your belief.



So, wait...  The $1.3 Million expenditure to "buy back" legally registered firearms doesn't really exist?  The internal memo talking about the "buy back" doesn't exist?  The complete lack of exemption for legally registered, pre '89 owend firearms in the confiscation order doesn't mean anything?  The fact that it's completely illegal in CA to own a detachable magazine SKS, and has been since '98 doesn't mean anything?

Oh yea, one of us is ignoring facts....

justtray: They're illegal to own now, no guns registered between 1989 and 1992 were ever confiscated.


If they're illegal to own now what happened to them?  If they were never confiscated where did they go?  ...and if they were never confiscated, wouldn't they still be legal to own?  Your logic just imploded on itself.

Where did they go and when did they become illegal to own?


justtray: Requiring a forced buyback is not the same as threatening to put someone in jail, then saying they have to sell them back to the government.


How is threatening to put someone in jail if they don't turn in their property for money not a forced buy back?
 
2013-03-13 04:36:38 PM  

dr_blasto: Zulu_as_Kono: dittybopper: So you do want me to be required to purchase a $1,000 gun safe in order to avoid prosecution if my guns get stolen, right?

How generous you are with my money.

I never said that.

But I did learn something today, so thanks for that.  I never realized that all these "gun safes" I hear about from responsible gun owners are more like fancified gym lockers.

A lot of them are. Their primary purpose is to keep kids from dicking around with your guns and accidentally shooting something or someone; if you have kids and they have friends and those kids hang out at your house from time-to-time, it is a good idea to have one.

They are also good at deterring thieves  they do take longer to access than simply pulling a rifle off a wall rack or whatever and they do conceal what is actually in them. I believe there is some minimum standard they have to meet for strength and whatnot-most are touted as complying with some CA judicial code.


I just bought a nice half-ton gun safe 2 weeks ago. It's big- I can fit inside of it easily and it holds all my guns and valuables. Not out of any feelings of responsibility towards children- me and Mrs. Cthulhucalling don't have any, we hardly have any visitors as it is, much less any visitors with their kids. When my Little Brother comes over to visit, I would just remove anything shooty from downstairs even though he can quote the 4 Rules forwards and backwards. That's just the way I roll. But I am concerned about when I'm NOT home. I have a few guns and a few other things of relative worth that I like having, and I don't like the idea of someone stealing my guns and doing something bad with them. When I'm home, the shotguns and 1911 come out, when we go somewhere, they get locked up with the rest of the stuff. The wife thanks me because I store all of my ammunition in the safe rather than taking up the bottom two shelves of the pantry.

Now, I have a friend that is buying a safe but he's of a mind that he can go cheap- get one from Costco or Wallyworld. Cheap, sheet metal job that weighs no more than 50 pounds. He thinks I'm being douchy for buying such a big, expensive safe. Will it stop a thief? No, but it will stop 99% of the f*ckers out there that are going to break into my house looking for things to fence for crack. Anyone that comes in with either a motorized lift or an angle grinder is obviously prepared and wants it bad enough, but that's the idea.

plus it's fun to watch the cats try to climb the thing and skid across the top.
 
2013-03-13 04:43:35 PM  

justtray: I hope this puts you to rest. You are wrong.


Holy lack of detail batman.  Was this rifle registered before or after the deadline?  We don't know.  Doesn't matter, because the letter I linked from the California Dept of Justice clearly indicates that both registered and unregistered weapons were confiscated... unless of course you think that $1.3 Million was embezzled.

Here's a little help identifying your logic flaw.  Just because unregistered weapons were seized, doesn't mean that unregistered weren't also seized.  You already admitted that it's illegal to own a detachable magazine SKS rifle in California even if it was registered in compliance with the 1989 ban.  The amusing part is watching you try to squirm out of acknowledging that AB-48 is the bill that outlawed them, and confiscated them.

...or you know, you could finally point out where in AB-48 it exempts registered SKS rifles.
 
2013-03-13 04:45:31 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: you just misunderstand everything we tell you.

Also, to make sure I'm not misunderstanding: most of the time when people say they keep their guns in a safe, it's not really a safe, more like a locker.

Because my buddy who's into guns keeps his in a safe, and it looks like this:[images.cabelas.com image 262x380]

But when guys like you and dittybopper talk about a safe, you're talking more about something like this, right?

[images.cabelas.com image 221x525]


When I say safe, I mean this:
lh3.googleusercontent.com

Anything else is just a tool box and not appropriate for the secure storage of firearms and valuables.
 
2013-03-13 04:46:26 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray: You realize you presented no proof or facts here right? Just you continuing your cognitive dissonance to falsely assert your belief.


So, wait...  The $1.3 Million expenditure to "buy back" legally registered firearms doesn't really exist?  The internal memo talking about the "buy back" doesn't exist?  The complete lack of exemption for legally registered, pre '89 owend firearms in the confiscation order doesn't mean anything?  The fact that it's completely illegal in CA to own a detachable magazine SKS, and has been since '98 doesn't mean anything?

Oh yea, one of us is ignoring facts....

justtray: They're illegal to own now, no guns registered between 1989 and 1992 were ever confiscated.

If they're illegal to own now what happened to them?  If they were never confiscated where did they go?  ...and if they were never confiscated, wouldn't they still be legal to own?  Your logic just imploded on itself.

Where did they go and when did they become illegal to own?


justtray: Requiring a forced buyback is not the same as threatening to put someone in jail, then saying they have to sell them back to the government.

How is threatening to put someone in jail if they don't turn in their property for money not a forced buy back?


Did you even read the bill you claim to have read?

(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 12276,
an "SKS rifle" under this section means all SKS rifles commonly referred
to as "SKS Sporter" versions, manufactured to accept a detachable AK-47
magazine and imported into this state and sold by a licensed gun dealer,
or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this
state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and
December 19, 1997.


It can't be anymore clear. The bill is only relevant to SKS purchased after the start 1992, including the buyback of 1.3m allotment.

YOU ARE WRONG. Deal with it. I won't be replying to you any further on this topic.
 
2013-03-13 04:48:43 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray: I hope this puts you to rest. You are wrong.

Holy lack of detail batman.  Was this rifle registered before or after the deadline?  We don't know.  Doesn't matter, because the letter I linked from the California Dept of Justice clearly indicates that both registered and unregistered weapons were confiscated... unless of course you think that $1.3 Million was embezzled.

Here's a little help identifying your logic flaw.  Just because unregistered weapons were seized, doesn't mean that unregistered weren't also seized.  You already admitted that it's illegal to own a detachable magazine SKS rifle in California even if it was registered in compliance with the 1989 ban.  The amusing part is watching you try to squirm out of acknowledging that AB-48 is the bill that outlawed them, and confiscated them.

...or you know, you could finally point out where in AB-48 it exempts registered SKS rifles.


You just insist on making yourself look like a moron. If you haven't gotten it by now, I can only assume you're remaining willfully ignorant.

You already made it obvious you didn't actually read your own link to the bill which clearly outlines these terms, or any of the many articles also explaining it for the reading impaired like yourself.

Good day.
 
2013-03-13 04:50:18 PM  

CthulhuCalling: Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: you just misunderstand everything we tell you.

Also, to make sure I'm not misunderstanding: most of the time when people say they keep their guns in a safe, it's not really a safe, more like a locker.

Because my buddy who's into guns keeps his in a safe, and it looks like this:[images.cabelas.com image 262x380]

But when guys like you and dittybopper talk about a safe, you're talking more about something like this, right?

[images.cabelas.com image 221x525]

When I say safe, I mean this:
[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 539x632]

Anything else is just a tool box and not appropriate for the secure storage of firearms and valuables.


The video linked below has two guys with pry bars breaking into that kind of safe in under two minutes.
 
2013-03-13 04:55:56 PM  
justtray:
Did you even read the bill you claim to have read?

(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 12276,
an "SKS rifle" under this section means all SKS rifles commonly referred
to as "SKS Sporter" versions, manufactured to accept a detachable AK-47
magazine and imported into this state and sold by a licensed gun dealer,
or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this
state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and
December 19, 1997.

It can't be anymore clear. The bill is only relevant to SKS purchased after the start 1992, including the buyback of 1.3m allotment.

YOU ARE WRONG. Deal with it. I won't be replying to you any further on this topic.


I've underlined something to help you.  The law doesn't say purchased between 1992 and 1997.  It says lawfully possessed between 1992 and 1997.  In order to be lawfully possessed during that period, it has to have been registered prior to 1992.  If it wasn't registered prior to 1992, it can't have been lawfully possessed during that time period because it was illegal to own a SKS registered after January 1, 1992, the close of registration.

A "lawfully possessed" SKS rifle during the time period 1992 - 1997 is one that was purchase prior to 1989 and registered prior to 1992.  Read the DOJ letter I linked and quoted.

The $1.3 MIllion was not applicable to firearms purchase or registered after 1992

Seriously, has this all been about you failing to note the difference between "possessed" and "purchased"
 
2013-03-13 05:02:26 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray:
Did you even read the bill you claim to have read?

(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 12276,
an "SKS rifle" under this section means all SKS rifles commonly referred
to as "SKS Sporter" versions, manufactured to accept a detachable AK-47
magazine and imported into this state and sold by a licensed gun dealer,
or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this
state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and
December 19, 1997.

It can't be anymore clear. The bill is only relevant to SKS purchased after the start 1992, including the buyback of 1.3m allotment.

YOU ARE WRONG. Deal with it. I won't be replying to you any further on this topic.

I've underlined something to help you.  The law doesn't say purchased between 1992 and 1997.  It says lawfully possessed between 1992 and 1997.  In order to be lawfully possessed during that period, it has to have been registered prior to 1992.  If it wasn't registered prior to 1992, it can't have been lawfully possessed during that time period because it was illegal to own a SKS registered after January 1, 1992, the close of registration.

A "lawfully possessed" SKS rifle during the time period 1992 - 1997 is one that was purchase prior to 1989 and registered prior to 1992.  Read the DOJ letter I linked and quoted.

The $1.3 MIllion was not applicable to firearms purchase or registered after 1992

Seriously, has this all been about you failing to note the difference between "possessed" and "purchased"


I am sorry that you are inferring meaning that is not there, however, that is on you. They were lawfully possessed in 1992-1997. They in this case is clearly outlined to be the modified, detatchable mag SKS'. I bolded the incorrect part for you, since you still seem to be unable to figure out why you're wrong. They did not have to be registered prior to 1992 to be lawfully possessed between 1992-1997. That's the entire reason there was an issue here, and ironically, what you're complaining about.

It doesn't have to say purchased because it's only referring to the modified version that was the only legal version after the 1992 ban, because it was a technicality that they then later fixed.

I'm really done now. I'm not your history teacher. Either go read online why you're wrong or remain ignorant.
 
2013-03-13 05:09:39 PM  

redmid17: CthulhuCalling:

Anything else is just a tool box and not appropriate for the secure storage of firearms and valuables.

The video linked below has two guys with pry bars breaking into that kind of safe in under two minutes.


I've seen that video before. My safe is not the same as the one they attacked. Two men are not going to push my safe over, and there's a reason why that particular safe was chosen for the demonstration.
 
2013-03-13 05:14:12 PM  

CthulhuCalling: dr_blasto: Zulu_as_Kono: dittybopper: So you do want me to be required to purchase a $1,000 gun safe in order to avoid prosecution if my guns get stolen, right?

How generous you are with my money.

I never said that.

But I did learn something today, so thanks for that.  I never realized that all these "gun safes" I hear about from responsible gun owners are more like fancified gym lockers.

A lot of them are. Their primary purpose is to keep kids from dicking around with your guns and accidentally shooting something or someone; if you have kids and they have friends and those kids hang out at your house from time-to-time, it is a good idea to have one.

They are also good at deterring thieves  they do take longer to access than simply pulling a rifle off a wall rack or whatever and they do conceal what is actually in them. I believe there is some minimum standard they have to meet for strength and whatnot-most are touted as complying with some CA judicial code.

I just bought a nice half-ton gun safe 2 weeks ago. It's big- I can fit inside of it easily and it holds all my guns and valuables. Not out of any feelings of responsibility towards children- me and Mrs. Cthulhucalling don't have any, we hardly have any visitors as it is, much less any visitors with their kids. When my Little Brother comes over to visit, I would just remove anything shooty from downstairs even though he can quote the 4 Rules forwards and backwards. That's just the way I roll. But I am concerned about when I'm NOT home. I have a few guns and a few other things of relative worth that I like having, and I don't like the idea of someone stealing my guns and doing something bad with them. When I'm home, the shotguns and 1911 come out, when we go somewhere, they get locked up with the rest of the stuff. The wife thanks me because I store all of my ammunition in the safe rather than taking up the bottom two shelves of the pantry.

Now, I have a friend that is buying a safe but he's of a mind that ...


They're all breakable, but they're useful deterrents. Just because someone can chuck a brick through the window of your car doesn't mean it is useless to lock your doors when you leave it.
 
2013-03-13 05:14:23 PM  

Bell-fan: Mugato: dittybopper: The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.

Isn't that a contradiction of terms? How do you know that they're law abiding citizens without a background check?

It's that whole INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY thing... ya may have heard of it.




Outdated thinking. It was written hundreds of years ago, before modern technology. No need for that sort of thinking anymore.
 
2013-03-13 05:21:03 PM  

dr_blasto: They're all breakable, but they're useful deterrents. Just because someone can chuck a brick through the window of your car doesn't mean it is useless to lock your doors when you leave it.



I said they're useful for deterring 99% of the crack addicts out there, but if someone really wants in, they're going to. Bruteforcing passwords is 100% effective, given enough time. Same deal.
 
2013-03-13 05:23:31 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Bell-fan: Mugato: dittybopper: The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.

Isn't that a contradiction of terms? How do you know that they're law abiding citizens without a background check?

It's that whole INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY thing... ya may have heard of it.

Outdated thinking. It was written hundreds of years ago, before modern technology. No need for that sort of thinking anymore.


That applies to convicting someone of a crime, not meeting the requirements of selling someone a firearm.

Why do you guys suck so much at arguing simple points?
 
2013-03-13 05:26:59 PM  

CthulhuCalling: dr_blasto: They're all breakable, but they're useful deterrents. Just because someone can chuck a brick through the window of your car doesn't mean it is useless to lock your doors when you leave it.


I said they're useful for deterring 99% of the crack addicts out there, but if someone really wants in, they're going to. Bruteforcing passwords is 100% effective, given enough time. Same deal.


I'm not arguing. Just mainly remembering when some asshole threw a brick through the window of my vehicle and ransacked it. They were rewarded with a cup full of loose change.

Does your safe have the locking bolts go through either side (hinge side and opening side)? If so, it's probably more secure than most.
 
2013-03-13 05:36:13 PM  

Mugato: StoPPeRmobile: Bell-fan: Mugato: dittybopper: The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.

Isn't that a contradiction of terms? How do you know that they're law abiding citizens without a background check?

It's that whole INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY thing... ya may have heard of it.

Outdated thinking. It was written hundreds of years ago, before modern technology. No need for that sort of thinking anymore.

That applies to convicting someone of a crime, not meeting the requirements of selling someone a firearm.

Why do you guys suck so much at arguing simple points?




Due process is also hundreds of years old. Outdated thinking in these modern enlightened times. No need for it anymore.
 
2013-03-13 05:39:48 PM  

dr_blasto: CthulhuCalling: dr_blasto: They're all breakable, but they're useful deterrents. Just because someone can chuck a brick through the window of your car doesn't mean it is useless to lock your doors when you leave it.


I said they're useful for deterring 99% of the crack addicts out there, but if someone really wants in, they're going to. Bruteforcing passwords is 100% effective, given enough time. Same deal.

I'm not arguing. Just mainly remembering when some asshole threw a brick through the window of my vehicle and ransacked it. They were rewarded with a cup full of loose change.

Does your safe have the locking bolts go through either side (hinge side and opening side)? If so, it's probably more secure than most.


Yes. Mrs. Cthulhu and I spent a good amount of time shopping for quality safes within our price range. She was really taken with the Browning Sportster but it's way too much safe for us. All 4 door edges have bolts that extend into the safe body.
 
2013-03-13 05:45:52 PM  

CthulhuCalling: dr_blasto: CthulhuCalling: dr_blasto: They're all breakable, but they're useful deterrents. Just because someone can chuck a brick through the window of your car doesn't mean it is useless to lock your doors when you leave it.


I said they're useful for deterring 99% of the crack addicts out there, but if someone really wants in, they're going to. Bruteforcing passwords is 100% effective, given enough time. Same deal.

I'm not arguing. Just mainly remembering when some asshole threw a brick through the window of my vehicle and ransacked it. They were rewarded with a cup full of loose change.

Does your safe have the locking bolts go through either side (hinge side and opening side)? If so, it's probably more secure than most.

Yes. Mrs. Cthulhu and I spent a good amount of time shopping for quality safes within our price range. She was really taken with the Browning Sportster but it's way too much safe for us. All 4 door edges have bolts that extend into the safe body.




Make sure you are friends with your neighbors.
 
2013-03-13 05:51:20 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: CthulhuCalling: 

Yes. Mrs. Cthulhu and I spent a good amount of time shopping for quality safes within our price range. She was really taken with the Browning Sportster but it's way too much safe for us. All 4 door edges have bolts that extend into the safe body.

Make sure you are friends with your neighbors.


We're friends with one of our neighbors. The other neighbor, we've always had problems with whoever lives in that house. It's owned by some old guy who rents it out through Section 8, and it's just been one trainwreck after another.
 
2013-03-13 06:23:00 PM  

heypete: Actually, both of those are roughly equal in terms of security.


Thanks, that's very informative.
 
gja
2013-03-13 07:40:40 PM  

RedT: And
4. Strict Liability for Gun Owners (if your gun shoots someone you have liability regardless of your preventative measures (or lack thereof), just like if someone drowns in your pool)


So, you would be OK with a law making a person liable for a kitchen knife stolen from their house, subsequently found to be used to murder someone?
Or, a stolen vehicle is driven by a thief and an accident results in a death, yet the owner of the stolen vehicle is charged and made vicariously liable?

You are out of your mind dear woman!

If someone breaks into my place, breaks into my safe, steals my rifle(s) and commits a crime with them, it is NOT my fault.
The mere fact that a crime had to be committed to obtain said rifle(s) should release me from any liability.
To me that is the litmus test that establishes culpability, intent and responsibility. The perpetrator committed a crime to obtain my property and then used it in the commission of a crime.

The use of the strict liability doctrine is not well advised where it is to be applied to items like guns insofar as ownership=strict liability absent of 'mens rea' once it is established the owner had taken reasonable measures to safeguard their guns.
 
2013-03-13 07:50:39 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: dittybopper: So you do want me to be required to purchase a $1,000 gun safe in order to avoid prosecution if my guns get stolen, right?

How generous you are with my money.

I never said that.

But I did learn something today, so thanks for that.  I never realized that all these "gun safes" I hear about from responsible gun owners are more like fancified gym lockers.


You have no idea.  Youtube some videos of people breaking into them, it'll be a wakeup call.
 
2013-03-13 08:21:00 PM  

Thunderpipes: This. Do people realize, entire generations like me grew up with lots of guns, sitting on gun racks, unlocked, with ammo around, and we just did not have these problems?


I drove around for years with a rifle in my gun rack in my pickup truck. I would be in a store or at dinner for an hour and the rifle would still be in my truck. Now I can't park my car or truck with the doors unlocked let alone with a rifle in a gun rack without something happening to it.

Something has definately changed.......maybe people empathize with the criminal too much and do not want to see them punished the criminals have nothing to fear cause someone will always advocate for the poor poor criminal who is just a product of their socio-economic background, or hung out with the wrong crowd....or was shot in an attempted robbery by some mean person who should have just given up his wallet and watch.
 
2013-03-13 08:45:31 PM  

heypete: redmid17: I had a long winded answer typed out, but I closed my tab on accident. I'm glad. Your answer is better.

Thanks. :)

You might be interested in this video. Sure, it's a bit of marketing from a high-end, high-security safe company but it demonstrates how easily one can break into a regular "gun safe". (Interesting bits start around 2:30)

Bolting the safe or locker to the wall will slow down the criminals a bit, as will having it in an area that prevents as much leverage from being applied, but "gun safes" offer surprisingly little security benefits from thieves. If they had an angle grinder or an axe, the criminals could get in a bit faster.



Saw that posted on ARFCOM was about to google it and post it here.
 
2013-03-13 10:10:28 PM  

justtray: I am sorry that you are inferring meaning that is not there however, that is on you. They were lawfully possessed in 1992-1997. They in this case is clearly outlined to be the modified, detatchable mag SKS'. I bolded the incorrect part for you, since you still seem to be unable to figure out why you're wrong. They did not have to be registered prior to 1992 to be lawfully possessed between 1992-1997. That's the entire reason there was an issue here, and ironically, what you're complaining about.


Seriously, that's what you are going to be with, that they didn't have to be registered?

Oh okay.

Hey, let's check the law:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php

ARTICLE 3. REGISTRATION AND PERMITS12285. (a)(1) Any person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon, as defined in Section 12276, prior to June 1, 1989, shall register the firearm by January 1, 1991, and any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was specified as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.5 shall register the firearm within 90 days, with the Department of Justice pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish. Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 12280, any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.1, and which was not specified as an assault weapon under Section 12276 or 12276.5, shall register the firearm within one year of the effective date of Section 12276.1, with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish.

Oh, well there goes your argument again.  So yes, in order to lawfully posses a SKS with a detachable magazine between 1992 and 1997, it had to be owned prior to 1989 and registered prior to the 1992 cutoff.   There was no other way to lawfully possess one of these firearms during that time period.


justtray: It doesn't have to say purchased because it's only referring to the modified version that was the only legal version after the 1992 ban, because it was a technicality that they then later fixed.


Look, I'm going to have to treat you like a child here because you keep confusing two seperate matters in the same issue.

1) There were SkS rifles with detachable magazines that were registered after the 1992 cut off date that were confiscated.  These are what you keep insisting were the only firearms ever confiscated.  These firearms were not eligible for the "buy back" that you've already admitted happened

2) All SKS rifles with detachable magazines that were property registered in accordance with the 1989 ban were also confiscated.  These are the firearms that the $1.3 million in funds was spent on under the pretense of a "buy back" program that just happened to involve jail time for people who didn't voluntarily comply.

Remember this letter from the CA DOJ that clearly mentions the difference between the two? http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer1.gif

"Unlike the SKS Sporter Buy-back Program which we will be starting shortly, no reimbursement is authorized in exchange for reliquishing assault weapons registered after the March 30, 1992 deadline."

THE POSSESSION OF ANY DETACHABLE MAGAZINE SKS RIFLE WAS MADE ILLEGAL AND ALL REMOVABLE MAGAZINE SKS RIFLES WERE CONFISCATED REGARDLESS OF REGISTRATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 1998 BAN.

You can insist all you want this did not happen, but the budget outlay says it did, the law says it did, communications from the CA DOJ says it did, the complete and total absence of detachable magazine SKS rifles in CA says it did.  The only thing that says it didn't is you.
 
2013-03-14 05:58:31 AM  

Giltric: wickedragon: When the words you print on your computer comes flying out from the screen on another computer and kills them THEN it is the same. You sir, need to think for a bit.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/bullied-teen-commits-suicide-posting-loves- ha terz/story?id=15887174

You were saying?


I was thinking about exactly that when I wrote my post. The words were not physically flying out of the screen and killing her. What happened was a hateful thing, words can hurt like hell. But her death was ultimately her own choice. A wrong choice. At 14 she was old enough to know better and should have made better choices. Doesn't mean that the "Haterz" arent complete douchholes, and wether or not the things they did were criminal is for society to decide. But here's the thing, the medium they chose, the computer, was just the medium. The tool they used has thousands upon thousands of non-hurting way beneficial uses.
Guns only kill.
 
2013-03-14 07:25:39 AM  

Giltric: Thunderpipes: This. Do people realize, entire generations like me grew up with lots of guns, sitting on gun racks, unlocked, with ammo around, and we just did not have these problems?

I drove around for years with a rifle in my gun rack in my pickup truck. I would be in a store or at dinner for an hour and the rifle would still be in my truck. Now I can't park my car or truck with the doors unlocked let alone with a rifle in a gun rack without something happening to it.

Something has definately changed.......maybe people empathize with the criminal too much and do not want to see them punished the criminals have nothing to fear cause someone will always advocate for the poor poor criminal who is just a product of their socio-economic background, or hung out with the wrong crowd....or was shot in an attempted robbery by some mean person who should have just given up his wallet and watch.


No, it hasn't changed, just your *PERCEPTION* of it has changed.

Crime is lower now than it has been in the last 40 years.  That's not an opinion, that's a fact:

sas-origin.onstreammedia.com

thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-03-14 07:26:43 AM  
That second graph is the "property crime" rate (ie., burglary, car theft, etc.).
 
2013-03-14 07:43:16 AM  

redmid17: heypete: redmid17: I had a long winded answer typed out, but I closed my tab on accident. I'm glad. Your answer is better.

Thanks. :)

You might be interested in this video. Sure, it's a bit of marketing from a high-end, high-security safe company but it demonstrates how easily one can break into a regular "gun safe". (Interesting bits start around 2:30)

Bolting the safe or locker to the wall will slow down the criminals a bit, as will having it in an area that prevents as much leverage from being applied, but "gun safes" offer surprisingly little security benefits from thieves. If they had an angle grinder or an axe, the criminals could get in a bit faster.

Holy crap. 1:41 with two guys and some pry bars. Also love how they dressed them up in black hoodies, for effect I;m sure


That video is such bullshiat.  Who keeps a safe in the middle of the room, not bolted to the floor, where it can be so easily flipped over onto it's side?
 
2013-03-14 11:03:18 AM  

wickedragon: Giltric: wickedragon: When the words you print on your computer comes flying out from the screen on another computer and kills them THEN it is the same. You sir, need to think for a bit.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/bullied-teen-commits-suicide-posting-loves- ha terz/story?id=15887174

You were saying?

I was thinking about exactly that when I wrote my post. The words were not physically flying out of the screen and killing her. What happened was a hateful thing, words can hurt like hell. But her death was ultimately her own choice. A wrong choice. At 14 she was old enough to know better and should have made better choices. Doesn't mean that the "Haterz" arent complete douchholes, and wether or not the things they did were criminal is for society to decide. But here's the thing, the medium they chose, the computer, was just the medium. The tool they used has thousands upon thousands of non-hurting way beneficial uses.
Guns only kill.


But guns can also kill beneficially.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intrud er /nTm7s/

She emptied her firearm into the guys head and he walked away but later bled out.....imagine if there were 2 or 3 intruders as there is over 35% of the time. Wpuld the other intruders be able to over come the woman as she was reloading like they claim you can do to any mass shooter?

Would you view the successful rape of that woman and her 2 daughters as morally superior to the intruder/s being shot?
 
2013-03-14 11:07:10 AM  

manimal2878: redmid17: heypete: redmid17: I had a long winded answer typed out, but I closed my tab on accident. I'm glad. Your answer is better.

Thanks. :)

You might be interested in this video. Sure, it's a bit of marketing from a high-end, high-security safe company but it demonstrates how easily one can break into a regular "gun safe". (Interesting bits start around 2:30)

Bolting the safe or locker to the wall will slow down the criminals a bit, as will having it in an area that prevents as much leverage from being applied, but "gun safes" offer surprisingly little security benefits from thieves. If they had an angle grinder or an axe, the criminals could get in a bit faster.

Holy crap. 1:41 with two guys and some pry bars. Also love how they dressed them up in black hoodies, for effect I;m sure

That video is such bullshiat.  Who keeps a safe in the middle of the room, not bolted to the floor, where it can be so easily flipped over onto it's side?



So add 30 seconds or a minute extra to pry the safe from its floor mountings and move it into the center of the room?

How long do you think the 5/8ths inch flooring the safe is bolted to will last?
 
2013-03-14 12:39:26 PM  

Giltric: wickedragon: Giltric: wickedragon: When the words you print on your computer comes flying out from the screen on another computer and kills them THEN it is the same. You sir, need to think for a bit.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/bullied-teen-commits-suicide-posting-loves- ha terz/story?id=15887174

You were saying?

I was thinking about exactly that when I wrote my post. The words were not physically flying out of the screen and killing her. What happened was a hateful thing, words can hurt like hell. But her death was ultimately her own choice. A wrong choice. At 14 she was old enough to know better and should have made better choices. Doesn't mean that the "Haterz" arent complete douchholes, and wether or not the things they did were criminal is for society to decide. But here's the thing, the medium they chose, the computer, was just the medium. The tool they used has thousands upon thousands of non-hurting way beneficial uses.
Guns only kill.

But guns can also kill beneficially.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intrud er /nTm7s/

She emptied her firearm into the guys head and he walked away but later bled out.....imagine if there were 2 or 3 intruders as there is over 35% of the time. Wpuld the other intruders be able to over come the woman as she was reloading like they claim you can do to any mass shooter?

Would you view the successful rape of that woman and her 2 daughters as morally superior to the intruder/s being shot?


No. But from the story I can't really see how that would have been the likely outcome. Sounds like a low-level thief who would probably just have run like hell. If he was armed it would have been mentioned in one of the stories.
Seeing as how I'm not in favour of the death penalty for a simple breaking and entering (or just "entering" as in this case) I'm glad he apparantly survived.

And, even if this had been McRapy Child Rapyson who got shot this still would not make all the thousands upon thousands of deaths from accidents each year any better. And if you think that the sheer mass of guns being sold "legally" has nothing to do with the amount of illegal guns in the U.S you sir need to explain to me where those guns used by criminals come from.
 
2013-03-14 12:42:26 PM  

wickedragon: And if you think that the sheer mass of guns being sold "legally" has nothing to do with the amount of illegal guns in the U.S you sir need to explain to me where those guns used by criminals come from.


Well the guns they use certainly have nothing to do with AR15 and their 30 round standard magazines.
 
2013-03-14 12:43:16 PM  

wickedragon: If he was armed it would have been mentioned in one of the stories.


He was armed with a crowbar.

Never bring a crowbar to a gun fight.
 
2013-03-14 03:04:04 PM  

Giltric: wickedragon: If he was armed it would have been mentioned in one of the stories.

He was armed with a crowbar.

Never bring a crowbar to a gun fight.


Never bring a gun to a house with kids in it. Statistically, if you want to keep your kids safe: Don'tget a gun.
 
2013-03-14 03:28:39 PM  

wickedragon: Giltric: wickedragon: If he was armed it would have been mentioned in one of the stories.

He was armed with a crowbar.

Never bring a crowbar to a gun fight.

Never bring a gun to a house with kids in it. Statistically, if you want to keep your kids safe: Don'tget a gun.


That's what locks and education are for.
 
2013-03-14 04:10:03 PM  

redmid17: wickedragon: Giltric: wickedragon: If he was armed it would have been mentioned in one of the stories.

He was armed with a crowbar.

Never bring a crowbar to a gun fight.

Never bring a gun to a house with kids in it. Statistically, if you want to keep your kids safe: Don'tget a gun.

That's what locks and education are for.


Ststistically they do not differentiate bewteen the guy who keeps his firearm locked up and the felon who keeps their gat on a nightstand next to their triple beam drug scale.
 
2013-03-14 04:51:41 PM  

Giltric: redmid17: wickedragon: Giltric: wickedragon: If he was armed it would have been mentioned in one of the stories.

He was armed with a crowbar.

Never bring a crowbar to a gun fight.

Never bring a gun to a house with kids in it. Statistically, if you want to keep your kids safe: Don'tget a gun.

That's what locks and education are for.

Ststistically they do not differentiate bewteen the guy who keeps his firearm locked up and the felon who keeps their gat on a nightstand next to their triple beam drug scale.


Or the people killed by a gun brought to the house from somewhere else.
 
2013-03-14 05:10:03 PM  

wickedragon: Giltric: wickedragon: If he was armed it would have been mentioned in one of the stories.

He was armed with a crowbar.

Never bring a crowbar to a gun fight.

Never bring a gun to a house with kids in it. Statistically, if you want to keep your kids safe: Don'tget a gun.


You're right, think how much worse it would be for this guy's kids if he had a gun.
 
2013-03-15 04:07:11 AM  

pedrop357: wickedragon: Giltric: wickedragon: If he was armed it would have been mentioned in one of the stories.

He was armed with a crowbar.

Never bring a crowbar to a gun fight.

Never bring a gun to a house with kids in it. Statistically, if you want to keep your kids safe: Don'tget a gun.

You're right, think how much worse it would be for this guy's kids if he had a gun.


Statistics doesn't deal in singular occurences but in the overall picture. If you buy a gun to keep your kids safe you're more likely to either kill the child yourself or have the child kill itself with the gun than you are to ever use the gun for protection.
The world simply isn't as dangerous as following world wide mass media might lead you to believe. People are way more likely ot have accidents than to meet evil, and having an accident with a gun is way more dangerous than having one without a gun.
 
2013-03-15 06:21:57 PM  

Giltric: So add 30 seconds or a minute extra to pry the safe from its floor mountings and move it into the center of the room?


Pro tip: Criminals are lazy.
 
2013-03-15 06:28:33 PM  

wickedragon: Statistics doesn't deal in singular occurences but in the overall picture.


Statistics can be twisted to say whatever the party conducting (or paying for) the study wants them to say.  Classic example would be the Kellerman study, often cited by gun (control) nuts, that lumped various domestic incidents together regardless of whether they were accidents, legitimate acts of defense, or drug dealers trying to reenact Reservoir Dogs.

Garbage in, bad laws out.
 
2013-03-15 08:17:06 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: wickedragon: Statistics doesn't deal in singular occurences but in the overall picture.

Statistics can be twisted to say whatever the party conducting (or paying for) the study wants them to say.  Classic example would be the Kellerman study, often cited by gun (control) nuts, that lumped various domestic incidents together regardless of whether they were accidents, legitimate acts of defense, or drug dealers trying to reenact Reservoir Dogs.

Garbage in, bad laws out.


I thought his comment about singular occurrences was amusing considering how much mileage statists get out of extremely rare events.
 
Displayed 49 of 499 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report