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.

(USA Today)   Criminals don't care about gun laws   (usatoday.com) divider line 453
    More: Obvious, camden, New Jersey, gun laws, Camden County, Second Amendment Foundation, gun regulation, America's Most Wanted, firearms dealer  
•       •       •

8136 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2013 at 9:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-08 12:00:01 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: It always makes me laugh that they ban this gun or that gun, or make it 20 times harder for a law abiding person who has common sense to get a good weapon for either self defense, hunting, or target shooting. After all those poor kids were killed by that asshole with the AR-15, all the gun hating libtards said "WE must do something to ban these guns, or make it much harder for people to get them. We must keep guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people."

Durrrrrrrrr

/The guy who killed all those kids? The guns weren't his. They belonged to his mother, who was a valid non crazy weapon owner. He killed her and stole her guns. Banning guns, or making it hard for honest law abiding people to get them does nothing, beyond your knee jerk reaction. He STOLE THEM. Make all the stupid moranic laws you want, criminals and crazy people don't give a fark. Jesus, get a farking brain and stop making new laws that the criminals ignore, or make it harder for honest people to defend themselves. Get a brain morans.


He didn't break into a house or gun shop and steal someone's guns. He collected the guns that were already within his own home and used them. I guess that, technically, you can say he stole them, but it's certainly not comparable to the first situation. If the guns weren't already in his own home, he would not have had the same access to them. It is unlikely he'd have broken into a gun shop.
 
2013-07-08 12:01:48 PM
I would really like to live in the world of the left, because it would be a wonderful place. The only problem with living in the world of the left is that it does not exist nor could it ever exist without removing economics from reality and replacing the profit motivation for working. Firearm laws will never have the effect the left thinks, because the firearms the criminals use for the most part are not obtained through the same means an average person would obtain one. The firearm is not the problem anyway the problem is poverty and lack of prospects, because as long as ones basic needs plus a little bit more are met they tend for the most part not to turn to crime. Placing people on a system that allows for them to barely live without employment and produce offspring without good education and parental guidance is only going to increase the problem.
 
2013-07-08 12:01:51 PM

This text is now purple: Aldon: Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate {all} firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general.

The Senate chair of the Intelligence Committee has little influence on policy or politics?


Please give any example of eliminating or confiscating all firearms even being debated in a federal level.

Anyone suggesting such things are immediately marginalized and removed from the debate.

As far as I know neither Fienstein or Bloomburg has brought up anything in the federal level even for debate that would eliminate and/or confiscate all firearms.

Again, to suggest that is part of the debate is a lie.
 
2013-07-08 12:02:22 PM

Zasteva: Remember that he included target practice as training for killing things, so put that under the umbrella of ultimate purpose.

If the only intent for a firearm design is target practice, then why use a lethal design? Why not less dangerous design -- a pellet gun, or a paintball gun. While those are both able to kill someone under the wrong circumstances, they are clearly not designed to kill.

Guns were initially designed and used for warfare. As they became cheaper and more available they gradually started being used for hunting. I'll pretty much guarantee you that nobody in 1890 would argue that a gun was not intended to kill things.


So, you do agree with him then that "firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things "... So why bother pretending you didn't?

Zasteva: Second rule of Car firearm safety -- never point it at anyone you don't intend to kill.


To be fair though, sometimes I have to swerve a bit to get the little ones....

Zasteva: Right. That's why they called the first cars "horseless carriages", because the word "carriage" means "highly effective method of killing people"



HISTORY!


www.biblepicturegallery.com

Zasteva: My brother's AK-47 and my best friend's .45 are designed to kill people. Any rumor that they are designed for non-lethal intents is simply false.


I seriously doubt your brother has an AK-47.  A semi-automatic clone, probably, but a true AK, most unlikely.  Savage Model Mark I G, any rumor that they are designed for lethal intents is simply false.  Unless you've recently heard of a rampage shooting with a single shot bolt action rifle?

Zasteva: So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person?


Absolutely not.  Any more than you are in support of putting a boot on your car and unplugging the battery every time your car isn't in use.
 
2013-07-08 12:02:34 PM

Alphakronik: Which is why you regulate the manufacture of said guns, not the possession.


How would you regulate the manufacture of said guns, if different than what is done now?
 
2013-07-08 12:03:02 PM

Zasteva: And yet you continue to compare cars to guns as if that's something an informed and intellectually honest person would do.


Only as a demonstration of absurdity.
 
2013-07-08 12:05:12 PM

JesseL: 2. We could start teaching safety and proper gun handling in public schools. There are people out there who have never been told things as simple as to treat all guns as loaded, to keep their fingers off of triggers until they're ready to shoot, or to never point a gun at anything they don't want to destroy. Covering the basic safety rules and some simple instruction on things like how to safely unload a gun could save plenty of lives, but some people react to this the way fundies do about non-abstinence-only sex-ed.


We did and still do, to a lesser extent than was done before (mostly due to the knee jerk irrational fear that brought about zero tolerance).  We had a rifle team when I was in school.  Kept a .22 in the trunk of my car.
 
2013-07-08 12:07:12 PM

BHShaman: Zasteva: Click Click D'oh: If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

Oh, and that's not to mention all the things we do to make sure that the humans who drive cars are responsible, like requiring safety and operations training, licensing, rules and regulations on how and where cars are used, prohibitions against operating while under the influence, careful tracking of ownership, and revocation of licenses for people who break the rules.

Shall we keep playing?

BHShaman: Sure. Vehicles are used largely in the public domain within normal usage. Therefore, there are a set of conditions of which you must meet in order to operate said machinery in public.


Agreed.

Firearms are largely used in private environments, unless utilized for a crime. Where utilized publicly, concealed carry, there are indeed a set of conditions that also need to be met; which include safety courses, shooting schools, registration, and license. (some or all depending on municipality)

I am pretty okay with the concealed carry rules in my state (Virginia). Most of my problems with existing laws come from lack of background checks for private purchases and lack of safe storage requirements for weapons not being carried by the owner (open or concealed).

Want to get serious about what requires training? I would wager that shiatty parenting results in the death of more people than all the rest of these petty arguments all combined. Bad parenting results in the death and injury of self, death and injury or others, illegal activities, cost to the public, cost to the individual, etc. etc. Get back to me when PARENTING requires even the least modicum of training, safety, and/or license to participate in.

In one sense I agree with you, but there are specific problems that make this unworkable. First, how do you decided what proper parenting is? Second, what enforcement mechanisms do you use to prevent people who having gotten proper training/licensing from having children anyway? Forced abortions? Forced sterilization? Forcibly implanted birth control? We have enough trouble getting conservatives to agree to school lunch programs, which are some of the most cost effect measures ever for improving education performance for disadvantaged kids. Imagine the uproar if we start having the state tell people how they have to raise their kids or forcing birth control on them.
 
2013-07-08 12:08:07 PM
Dimensio:
Truly, violent times are ahead for the state of Illinois. Less than six months after "shall-issue" concealed weapons permits were first issued in Wisconsin, a concealed weapons permit holder in the state shot another individual at an Aldi's grocery store over a simple disagreement*.

*The shooter disagreed with the victim's plan to commit armed robbery.


H183 has been described as the perfect compromise, no one likes it. Like most compromises it has good and bad points.
The good:
State preemption on concealed carry laws. In other words, One State, one law. If you are legal in Cairo, you are legal in Chicago(theoretically).
Partial preemption on other gun laws. Lt Gov. Simon encouraged home rule communities to pass assault weapons bans before the 10 day window after H183 becomes law expires. Such bans already on the books stay in place but no new bans at local level, State level only.
Shall issue permits
Restaurant carry if food is 51% or greater than alcohol sales.
Parking lots of prohibited areas are Safe Harbors which allow you to store your gun in your vehicle with protection against brandishing charges while removing your gun.

The bad:
16 hours of training as opposed to the 8 to 12 required by other states. One original proposal required 40 hours.
$150 license fee
No reciprocity, although non resident permits at $300 will be available
Restrictive in places permitted for carry, no carry on public or mass transportation or waiting areas for such transportation.
Another background check. If you have a FOID card, you've already been through a background check.

It will be at least a year before the first permits will be issued. It will take 20 years to improve the bill to being less restrictive and a constant fight to prevent it from becoming more restrictive.
 
2013-07-08 12:10:02 PM
But are Earl and Randy OK?
 
2013-07-08 12:10:26 PM

scotty425: Dimensio:
Truly, violent times are ahead for the state of Illinois. Less than six months after "shall-issue" concealed weapons permits were first issued in Wisconsin, a concealed weapons permit holder in the state shot another individual at an Aldi's grocery store over a simple disagreement*.

*The shooter disagreed with the victim's plan to commit armed robbery.

H183 has been described as the perfect compromise, no one likes it. Like most compromises it has good and bad points.
The good:
State preemption on concealed carry laws. In other words, One State, one law. If you are legal in Cairo, you are legal in Chicago(theoretically).
Partial preemption on other gun laws. Lt Gov. Simon encouraged home rule communities to pass assault weapons bans before the 10 day window after H183 becomes law expires. Such bans already on the books stay in place but no new bans at local level, State level only.
Shall issue permits
Restaurant carry if food is 51% or greater than alcohol sales.
Parking lots of prohibited areas are Safe Harbors which allow you to store your gun in your vehicle with protection against brandishing charges while removing your gun.

The bad:
16 hours of training as opposed to the 8 to 12 required by other states. One original proposal required 40 hours.
$150 license fee
No reciprocity, although non resident permits at $300 will be available
Restrictive in places permitted for carry, no carry on public or mass transportation or waiting areas for such transportation.
Another background check. If you have a FOID card, you've already been through a background check.

It will be at least a year before the first permits will be issued. It will take 20 years to improve the bill to being less restrictive and a constant fight to prevent it from becoming more restrictive.


I'd stick the lack of repealing the rather onerous Chicago registration process in the bad part as well, but, like you said, a good compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
 
2013-07-08 12:10:52 PM

redmid17: Zasteva:
All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.

redmid17: Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.


Hmm... I have you farkied as a d*ckhead from another thread where you referred to a 15 year old rape victim as a "stripper". So your judgement is questionable at best.
 
2013-07-08 12:17:12 PM

Click Click D'oh: JesseL: 2. We could start teaching safety and proper gun handling in public schools. There are people out there who have never been told things as simple as to treat all guns as loaded, to keep their fingers off of triggers until they're ready to shoot, or to never point a gun at anything they don't want to destroy. Covering the basic safety rules and some simple instruction on things like how to safely unload a gun could save plenty of lives, but some people react to this the way fundies do about non-abstinence-only sex-ed.

We did and still do, to a lesser extent than was done before (mostly due to the knee jerk irrational fear that brought about zero tolerance).  We had a rifle team when I was in school.  Kept a .22 in the trunk of my car.


Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.
 
2013-07-08 12:20:36 PM

Zasteva: redmid17: Zasteva:
All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.

redmid17: Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.

Hmm... I have you farkied as a d*ckhead from another thread where you referred to a 15 year old rape victim as a "stripper". So your judgement is questionable at best.


Erm I'd love to see that. Unless I wast posting in a blackout and being sarcastic, I don't really see that happening. However given your lack of knowledge about gun laws, it's not surprising you're questioning me. DC v Heller specifically addressed these storage requirements and struck them down as unconstitutional.


"Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

/just looked up the thread
//was being a drunk sarcastic asshole. certainly none of those on fark
 
2013-07-08 12:21:03 PM

dittybopper: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.


Well said.
 
2013-07-08 12:21:34 PM

redmid17: scotty425: Dimensio:
Truly, violent times are ahead for the state of Illinois. Less than six months after "shall-issue" concealed weapons permits were first issued in Wisconsin, a concealed weapons permit holder in the state shot another individual at an Aldi's grocery store over a simple disagreement*.

*The shooter disagreed with the victim's plan to commit armed robbery.

H183 has been described as the perfect compromise, no one likes it. Like most compromises it has good and bad points.
The good:
State preemption on concealed carry laws. In other words, One State, one law. If you are legal in Cairo, you are legal in Chicago(theoretically).
Partial preemption on other gun laws. Lt Gov. Simon encouraged home rule communities to pass assault weapons bans before the 10 day window after H183 becomes law expires. Such bans already on the books stay in place but no new bans at local level, State level only.
Shall issue permits
Restaurant carry if food is 51% or greater than alcohol sales.
Parking lots of prohibited areas are Safe Harbors which allow you to store your gun in your vehicle with protection against brandishing charges while removing your gun.

The bad:
16 hours of training as opposed to the 8 to 12 required by other states. One original proposal required 40 hours.
$150 license fee
No reciprocity, although non resident permits at $300 will be available
Restrictive in places permitted for carry, no carry on public or mass transportation or waiting areas for such transportation.
Another background check. If you have a FOID card, you've already been through a background check.

It will be at least a year before the first permits will be issued. It will take 20 years to improve the bill to being less restrictive and a constant fight to prevent it from becoming more restrictive.

I'd stick the lack of repealing the rather onerous Chicago registration process in the bad part as well, but, like you said, a good compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.


True, but if I were to list ALL of the bad parts, I'd still be typing!
 
2013-07-08 12:24:24 PM

vanbiber874: Click Click D'oh: JesseL: 2. We could start teaching safety and proper gun handling in public schools. There are people out there who have never been told things as simple as to treat all guns as loaded, to keep their fingers off of triggers until they're ready to shoot, or to never point a gun at anything they don't want to destroy. Covering the basic safety rules and some simple instruction on things like how to safely unload a gun could save plenty of lives, but some people react to this the way fundies do about non-abstinence-only sex-ed.

We did and still do, to a lesser extent than was done before (mostly due to the knee jerk irrational fear that brought about zero tolerance).  We had a rifle team when I was in school.  Kept a .22 in the trunk of my car.

Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.


You can't make schools safe from gun violence (or any other kind of violence) by fiat. Reread the headline for this thread.

You can reduce the number of kids accidentally killed by guns by demystifying them and teaching how to handle them safely.

You are an example of exactly the kind of anti-gun, abstinence only asshats who are responsible for people no knowing better than to point "unloaded" guns at their friends.
 
2013-07-08 12:25:10 PM

redmid17: Alphakronik: Which is why you regulate the manufacture of said guns, not the possession.

How would you regulate the manufacture of said guns, if different than what is done now?


Safety locks (child proof), built in finger print readers, hell...they even have a camera setup that can be built in under the barrel now that can identify a human target from anything else!

Unfortunately, the NRA has held a firm stance against manufacture regulations for a long time now.  You can also regulate the gunpowder that is used to manuf. bullets, in the same way that we regulated explosive fertilizer after the OK City bombing.
 
2013-07-08 12:27:51 PM

scotty425: The bad:
16 hours of training as opposed to the 8 to 12 required by other states. One original proposal required 40 hours.


I am unclear how even 40 hours is bad to take ownership of a murderin' tool.
 
2013-07-08 12:28:48 PM

Aldon: This text is now purple: Aldon: Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate {all} firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general.

The Senate chair of the Intelligence Committee has little influence on policy or politics?

Please give any example of eliminating or confiscating all firearms even being debated in a federal level.

Anyone suggesting such things are immediately marginalized and removed from the debate.

As far as I know neither Fienstein or Bloomburg has brought up anything in the federal level even for debate that would eliminate and/or confiscate all firearms.

Again, to suggest that is part of the debate is a lie.


The problem is that no one proposes confiscation, per se, but everything up to confiscation, and 'soft' confiscation, like being unable to transfer or inherit whole classes of firearms.  To Feinstein and Bloomberg, the compromise is in allowing those filthy gun owners to keep their guns, provided they jump through the right bureaucratic hoops and pay the necessary, largely punitive fees.

And then there's California....

Anybody who is in the middle or doesn't understand why gun owners as a group oppose more restrictive gun laws need look no further than what's already on the books in CA and what's coming down in the future.
 
2013-07-08 12:29:05 PM
Firearms.

In the hands of an emotional person a tool to harm others.

In the hands of a responsible person nothing more than a means to make holes in inanimate objects and perhaps help reduce local fauna population frequently no longer kept in check by predators. Because, well, few people really want cougars/mountain lions/bears in their back yards.

Many concessions have already been made by the owners for public safety. We don't sell them via mail any more. We restrict the types of mechanisms available. We limit the minimum and maximum sizes of the weapon as well as the energy value of the projectile.

some scream for fewer firearms, ignoring that most deaths in the past century have been by established governments against their own people. Including in first and second world nations. Some how we are 'better' than this without clear enumeration of 'how'. This would be considered poor risk management if it was a business.

As time and technology move forward energy levels available to the average joe will continue to increase. Not in firearms, but in normal day-to-day appliances.  Nothing can realisticly be done to prevent this short of denying technological progression. Should we perhaps not be more focused on how to make better people before we find ourselves stuck with a populace too risk adverse to tolerate threat and too incompetent to safely manage the tools at hand?

Because that seems to be where we are headed. And it isn't gov's job to shape society. Society should shape gov. Go be the best person you can. Stop acting like you dieing is a tragedy unique in human history. We are all going to do it. Stop acting so constantly terrified of all of it. And for crying out loud, have some standards. If you can't trust yourself with a pack of matches and 5 gallons of gas when you are pissed off; or a firearm under same then FIX Yourself. Stop tolerating those who can't manage to pull it together to that utterly basic level. It has to be a social pressure to do so; it can't be gov driven. If its gov driven you end up with all sorts of nasty side effects and morality whoring.
 
2013-07-08 12:29:05 PM

manimal2878: dittybopper: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

Well said.


Very well said. I want a Tommy gun. And a full-auto AK. And a full-auto SKS. And a full auto M-16. And a 40mm gun. There should be no laws against the possession of inanimate objects. I'm gonna build be a snuke.
 
2013-07-08 12:30:07 PM

Alphakronik: redmid17: Alphakronik: Which is why you regulate the manufacture of said guns, not the possession.

How would you regulate the manufacture of said guns, if different than what is done now?

Safety locks (child proof), built in finger print readers, hell...they even have a camera setup that can be built in under the barrel now that can identify a human target from anything else!


Please inform me when such technology is reliable and inexpensive, and when legislators proposing a mandate upon such technology do not include any exemption for law enforcement.


Unfortunately, the NRA has held a firm stance against manufacture regulations for a long time now.  You can also regulate the gunpowder that is used to manuf. bullets, in the same way that we regulated explosive fertilizer after the OK City bombing.

What specific regulation upon gunpowder do you recommend?
 
2013-07-08 12:30:24 PM

Fark It: Anybody who is in the middle or doesn't understand why gun owners as a group oppose more restrictive gun laws need look no further than what's already on the books in CA and what's coming down in the future.


I moved from CA to LA about two years ago. Nothing in CA prevented me from purchasing firearms that I wanted. Nothing.
 
2013-07-08 12:31:18 PM

Daniels: scotty425: The bad:
16 hours of training as opposed to the 8 to 12 required by other states. One original proposal required 40 hours.

I am unclear how even 40 hours is bad to take ownership of a murderin' tool.


"Murderin' tools" are not relevant to the legislation.
 
2013-07-08 12:32:13 PM

Click Click D'oh: Zasteva: Remember that he included target practice as training for killing things, so put that under the umbrella of ultimate purpose.

If the only intent for a firearm design is target practice, then why use a lethal design? Why not less dangerous design -- a pellet gun, or a paintball gun. While those are both able to kill someone under the wrong circumstances, they are clearly not designed to kill.

Guns were initially designed and used for warfare. As they became cheaper and more available they gradually started being used for hunting. I'll pretty much guarantee you that nobody in 1890 would argue that a gun was not intended to kill things.

Click Click D'oh: So, you do agree with him then that "firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things "... So why bother pretending you didn't?


I feel like the nuance of this is lost on you, but I'll give it one more try:

"firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things" is not an absolutely true statement as written. A firearm can be used for target shooting, i.e.: a form of recreation that doesn't involve killing. It can also be used as a collector's item, valued for historical or artistic reasons. Many people own and use firearms and never kill anything with them.

To make it an absolutely true statement, I would rephrase it this way. "The primary design purpose of firearms is to kill things."

MFAWG also pointed out, quite correctly, that target practice with a firearm is practice for killing things. This seems like a reasonable position to take because otherwise we would do target shooting with non-lethal pellet guns or paintball guns (and some people do) rather than with lethal firearms.

So, as I read MFAWG's statement, I estimated the intent behind it based on the full context, and I agree with what I understand his intent to be. I don't agree with the statement exactly as written and taken out of context.

Does that make more sense to you?
 
2013-07-08 12:32:46 PM

Fark It: The problem is that no one proposes confiscation, per se


You are mistaken.
 
2013-07-08 12:34:17 PM
bigpete53:  I'm gonna build be a snuke.

Just use a different color scheme than orange and mute the audio system. Might try upgrading the on board computer too
 
2013-07-08 12:34:30 PM

bigpete53: Fark It: Anybody who is in the middle or doesn't understand why gun owners as a group oppose more restrictive gun laws need look no further than what's already on the books in CA and what's coming down in the future.

I moved from CA to LA about two years ago. Nothing in CA prevented me from purchasing firearms that I wanted. Nothing.


If you wished to legally purchase a threaded barrel for a Springfield XD Compact handgun, from where would you obtain it?
 
2013-07-08 12:38:25 PM

Dimensio: If you wished to legally purchase a threaded barrel for a Springfield XD Compact handgun, from where would you obtain it?


I have no idea, as that is not something I wanted to buy. Your reading comprehension sucks.
 
2013-07-08 12:40:41 PM

supayoda: 1. There is no law in existence that will prevent 100% of the problems associated with said law, but that doesn't mean we stop having laws.


I agree with this, and no one is arguing for a lawless society.  When it comes to the gun debate, those who point out that gun laws don't stop criminals are saying that gun laws only effect the law abiding.  It's like saying "We know that people occasionally run red lights, so we're going to make red lights a minimum of three minutes."  That doesn't stop anyone from running a red light, just makes the temptation to run a red light more tempting because if you don't you're caught behind a three minute red light.

2. Can SOME deaths be prevented by stricter gun laws? The answer to that question is a resounding YES. In particular, accidental deaths (particularly to children) in homes where guns are kept would be reduced significantly. One-time mass shootings from otherwise non-offenders would also go down. So the question would be... How many preventable deaths is too many before we pass even the tiniest measure?

Again, these are laws that aren't addressing actual gun crimes, they effect the law abiding...mostly.  If a person was dead set on shooting up a school, he's going to make it happen.  Stricter gun laws aren't going to stop it, just piss off the gun owners even more because they're the ones paying the price.  Want to protect children in a school?  Look at protecting the school.  We protect courthouses with armed guards, we protect military bases with armed guards, why aren't we protecting schools with armed guards?  That's honestly the only way to stop a school shooting.

3. Drug and gang-related crime is not necessarily the sort of criminal that new gun laws would even be targeting. Yes, they can in fact obtain a gun on the black market. The laws in question are aimed more at the "school shooter" type, which has typically obtained firearms through perfectly legal means.

Again, why aren't we dealing with school shooter types with armed guards at the schools?  That seems to be the most logical and easiest solution.  Someone enters school property with a firearm, shoot him dead.

If your goal is to stop school shootings, then protect the schools.  If your goal is keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then yes, do background checks, but the background check shouldn't take more than 20 minutes and it should really be to see if the person is a felon or not.  That should be the entire background check.  I even support the idea that if a felon even attempts to buy a gun and the background check returns him as a felon, the buyer is to be arrested on site (we have a law on the books from the 1960s that makes it a crime for a felon to even attempt to purchase a firearm).  But I don't support extensive background checks beyond the simple "Is this person a felon?", I don't support denying firearms to those with mental illness because it's so vague.  I don't even support the mandatory waiting period for buying a gun.  All that does is push buyers from gun stores to private sellers.
 
2013-07-08 12:40:49 PM

JesseL: vanbiber874: Click Click D'oh: JesseL: 2. We could start teaching safety and proper gun handling in public schools. There are people out there who have never been told things as simple as to treat all guns as loaded, to keep their fingers off of triggers until they're ready to shoot, or to never point a gun at anything they don't want to destroy. Covering the basic safety rules and some simple instruction on things like how to safely unload a gun could save plenty of lives, but some people react to this the way fundies do about non-abstinence-only sex-ed.

We did and still do, to a lesser extent than was done before (mostly due to the knee jerk irrational fear that brought about zero tolerance).  We had a rifle team when I was in school.  Kept a .22 in the trunk of my car.

Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.

You can't make schools safe from gun violence (or any other kind of violence) by fiat. Reread the headline for this thread.

You can reduce the number of kids accidentally killed by guns by demystifying them and teaching how to handle them safely.

You are an example of exactly the kind of anti-gun, abstinence only asshats who are responsible for people no knowing better than to point "unloaded" guns at their friends.


Wow, that got out of hand fast.

That is the first time I've been called an asshat for wanting to keep guns out of schools. The point I was making refers to the "knee jerk, irrational" part of the previous post.  Also, making "people like" me responsible for causing accidental injury/death is silly at best. I think gun safety courses would be a great place to learn about gun safety. I would like schools to stay academic.

Also, I have never stated I was "anti-gun". I think that was something you may have made up in your head. You only know my position on having guns in schools, not on gun regulation in general. Keeping guns out of schools is far from being anti-gun.
 
2013-07-08 12:41:00 PM

manimal2878: dittybopper: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

Well said.


There are also laws against owning (or highly restricting): materials to make bombs, materials to make illegal drugs, LSD, meth, cuban cigars, Castor bean plants, endagered or dangerous animals etc, etc....

Should be eliminate all those laws as well?
 
2013-07-08 12:41:33 PM

bigpete53: Dimensio: If you wished to legally purchase a threaded barrel for a Springfield XD Compact handgun, from where would you obtain it?

I have no idea, as that is not something I wanted to buy. Your reading comprehension sucks.


I understand your position now: because you are able to purchase firearms that you desire, California's restrictions are not excessive.
 
2013-07-08 12:41:40 PM

vanbiber874: Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.


Thank you for making my point perfectly for me as to why irrational knee jerk reactions will prevent us implementing effective firearms education at a school level every again.  There were thousands of school shooting teams across the nation that all kept firearms and ammunition in some capacity or another.  How many of those were involved in school shootings?  Zero?  Oh... so, your tirade was just an emotional knee jerk response?  K'thanks, bye,
 
2013-07-08 12:42:06 PM

redmid17: Zasteva: redmid17: Zasteva:
All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.

redmid17: Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.

Hmm... I have you farkied as a d*ckhead from another thread where you referred to a 15 year old rape victim as a "stripper". So your judgement is questionable at best.

Erm I'd love to see that. Unless I wast posting in a blackout and being sarcastic, I don't really see that happening. However given your lack of knowledge about gun laws, it's not surprising you're questioning me. DC v Heller specifically addressed these storage requirements and struck them down as unconstitutional.


"Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
/just looked up the thread
//was being a drunk sarcastic asshole. certainly none of those on fark


Glad to hear that. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. I'll unfarkie you (not that I expect you have any reason to care).

As from DC vs Heller, I'm aware of that. A couple of comments:

DC vs Heller referred specifically to the law requiring a trigger lock (difficult and time consuming to remove) or disassembly for storage. As cited above it prevented their lawful use in self-defense.

Instant open gun safes would not interfere with that, nor would trigger locks if there was an exception for when the person had the weapon on their person with clarification that on the nightstand or under the pillow while you sleep is "on their person".

Regardless though, I was asking whether he was personally in favor or against such requirements, not whether they were constitutional or not.
 
2013-07-08 12:42:14 PM

Daniels: scotty425: The bad:
16 hours of training as opposed to the 8 to 12 required by other states. One original proposal required 40 hours.

I am unclear how even 40 hours is bad to take ownership of a murderin' tool.


1) The 40 hours was a proposed requirement for CCW permit, not just ownership. 3x-5x the requirement in other states is definitely an eyebrow raiser. Forty hours just to own a gun is something that would likely get struck down quite heavily in court similar to prior restraint. An enumerated right shouldn't be subject to that kind of requirement. It wouldn't go over well if someone had to do 40 hours of research to vote or 40 hours of speech training to attend a demonstration. Chicago's own permitting process is under heavy fire because it requires an hour of range training time but Chicago has a ban on all gun stores and ranges within the city limits, which in and of itself is something Chicago has already lost on multiple times but still appeals or drags their feet on implementing a fix for.
 
2013-07-08 12:42:51 PM

bigpete53: Fark It: Anybody who is in the middle or doesn't understand why gun owners as a group oppose more restrictive gun laws need look no further than what's already on the books in CA and what's coming down in the future.

[Anecdote]


And?
 
2013-07-08 12:45:34 PM

Fark It: bigpete53: Fark It: Anybody who is in the middle or doesn't understand why gun owners as a group oppose more restrictive gun laws need look no further than what's already on the books in CA and what's coming down in the future.

[Anecdote]

And?


His position is understandable: because he is not inconvenienced, the laws of California are not unnecessarily restrictive.

Similarly, because a heterosexual is able to marry a person of the opposite gender, and thus are not inconvenienced by same-sex marriage bans, no heterosexual can rationally oppose such bans.
 
2013-07-08 12:45:36 PM

Dimensio: Fark It: The problem is that no one proposes confiscation, per se

You are mistaken.


Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying.  And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights.

Again, in the federal level there is no debate about this.
 
2013-07-08 12:46:32 PM

Alphakronik: Safety locks (child proof), built in finger print readers,


The fingerprint reader in my office usually takes two or three times to get a good read, while I'm standing still.    Not so much a valuable design feature in a gun you need to shoot right now.

Alphakronik: hell...they even have a camera setup that can be built in under the barrel now that can identify a human target from anything else!


Um... wut?

Alphakronik: You can also regulate the gunpowder that is used to manuf. bullets, in the same way that we regulated explosive fertilizer after the OK City bombing.


Smokeless powder is not an explosive or a precursor to one so it can not be regulated as an explosive.
 
2013-07-08 12:48:05 PM

Aldon: Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying.  And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights


Those goalposts, they heavy?
 
2013-07-08 12:48:58 PM

Click Click D'oh: vanbiber874: Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.

Thank you for making my point perfectly for me as to why irrational knee jerk reactions will prevent us implementing effective firearms education at a school level every again.  There were thousands of school shooting teams across the nation that all kept firearms and ammunition in some capacity or another.  How many of those were involved in school shootings?  Zero?  Oh... so, your tirade was just an emotional knee jerk response?  K'thanks, bye,


No, my response was based on a view that I have developed over time and experience I have at schools. Based on your typos and strange phrasing, I think your response was more knee-jerk. itwasapleasurediscussingthiswithyou, bye.
 
2013-07-08 12:50:43 PM

Fark It: Aldon: Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying.  And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights

Those goalposts, they heavy?


Haha!  Project much?

Where in that article shows someone in power proposing confiscation of firearms?
 
2013-07-08 12:52:30 PM

Zasteva: Instant open gun safes would not interfere with that, nor would trigger locks if there was an exception for when the person had the weapon on their person with clarification that on the nightstand or under the pillow while you sleep is "on their person".


I think that SCOTUS would disagree with the former assertion differentiating between an instant open safe and a trigger lock. There is a reason why they included "or similar devices" in the opinion. They also didn't focus on difficulty of removal, just the fact it was rendered or kept inoperable. Also the latter interpretation might be troublesome for laws regulating possession and/or usage of guns. The court would also likely not be real keen on introducing another required cost to own a firearm.
 
2013-07-08 12:52:33 PM
Zasteva:MFAWG also pointed out, quite correctly, that target practice with a firearm is practice for killing things.

The vast majority of the time, no, it's not.  If you think it is, that just confirms more for me that you have zero experience with firearms, or killing.  If you think that your average range rat with his sandbags, sighting scope and bench even in the slightest resembles anything remotely like killing, you are deluded.  Poking holes in paper is just that, poking holes in paper.

The people I actually train to practice killing with a firearm are in a whole other world that what you see at a public range.  It's not night and day or apples and oranges, it's Soccer VS Camp Lejeune.
 
2013-07-08 12:53:05 PM
  Criminals don't care about  gun laws.

Fixed.
 
2013-07-08 12:54:09 PM

Aldon: Fark It: Aldon: Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying.  And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights

Those goalposts, they heavy?

Haha!  Project much?

Where in that article shows someone in power proposing confiscation of firearms?


"Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them," Muhlbauer said.
 
2013-07-08 12:55:24 PM

Dimensio: Aldon: Fark It: Aldon: Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying.  And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights

Those goalposts, they heavy?

Haha!  Project much?

Where in that article shows someone in power proposing confiscation of firearms?

"Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them," Muhlbauer said.


Doesn't count!  An elected official proposing gun confiscation isn't "someone in power proposing confiscation of firearms!"

/rolls eyes
 
2013-07-08 12:58:24 PM

vanbiber874: No, my response was based on a view that I have developed over time and experience I have at schools. Based on your typos and strange phrasing, I think your response was more knee-jerk. itwasapleasurediscussingthiswithyou, bye.


So, what part of your school experience dictates that school shooting teams, in school firearms education and students with firearms in their car leads to school shootings?  Oh, and which school shooting(s) can be attributed to those above items?

Since you are claiming your position in based on reason and logic, that should be pretty easy to provide an answer for....
 
Displayed 50 of 453 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report