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.

(NYPost)   "Well gooooollly, what do you mean I can't take a loaded pistol to the top of the Empire State Building. Do you think you can hold this for me?"   (nypost.com) divider line 235
    More: Dumbass, Empire State Building, Tennessee Woman  
•       •       •

5429 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2013 at 12:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-24 01:56:02 PM  

dittybopper: Englebert Slaptyback: I recall reading somewhere that in the 1950s the NRA was all about teaching firearm safety and (as you mentioned) marksmanship and skill. They were even in favor of reasonable laws concerning firearms.

The change came in 1977, in response to a bunch of enacted and proposed gun control laws.

The NRA changed to be more politically active in *RESPONSE* to gun control.

I mean, would you be surprised if the National Hot Rod Association started becoming more politically active in the wake of attempts to ban 2 seater sports cars, cars with racing stripes, and cars capable of exceeding the national speed limit?  I certainly wouldn't be.


Can you think of any non-military motor vehicles that are designed for the purpose of killing? Motor vehicles are subject to all kinds of safety, licensing, use, and registration standards at every level of government.
 
2013-07-24 01:56:47 PM  

JesseL: Yes, you're a master of tautology. I was just pointing out that "carrying a pistol illegally" doesn't always mean "carrying without a valid and recognized permit in your current jurisdiction".

/owns 12 handguns, has a carry permit, type 03 & type 07 Federal Firearms Licenses
//despises pissing matches


More of "wanted to lead off some trolls claims of being a liberal who hates guns" type deal.
 
2013-07-24 01:59:06 PM  

Tommy Moo: Skanque: Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.

Are you completely naive?  You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the  really strict gun laws in NYC?

New York does allow for concealed carry with a permit:

http://www.usacarry.com/new_york_concealed_carry_permit_information. ht ml

The only thing I see is that they do not have a reciprocity clause with the state of Georgia. There ought to be a much smaller deal made out of a Georgian with a CC permit carrying in NY than some random guy with no permit from any state brandishing a gun with the serial number filed off.


Because if there is anybody who should be profoundly ignorant about gun laws, it should be CCW holders.  Got it.
Should he be allowed to bag same quota of attractive and successful citizens allowed in Georgia as well?

/went there.
//note Georgia not Florida.  Didn't go there.  Not sure if Florida has a limit on anybody.
 
2013-07-24 02:01:18 PM  
It's NYC. Assume everything is illegal.
 
2013-07-24 02:03:54 PM  
spmkk
Because outside of gun laws, there are VERY few things (about the only two that come to mind are age-of-consent variances and marijuana distribution) that are perfectly legal in one state but will get you charged with a felony in another.
We're also not talking about someone who assumed everything was unregulated and carrying a gun wherever you wanted was cool. He applied for, received and possessed a valid CCW permit. He also respected local regulations (once he learned that they exist) and asked the right people how he could comply with them. In return he got thrown in jail.
It is reasonable for states to have different laws about, say, vehicle emissions standards. It's reasonable for states to charge different tax rates on cigarettes. The variation that exists in gun laws between different states (and in cases like NYC and Chicago, between different cities) is NOT reasonable, and it is unreasonable to expect citizens to possess adequate knowledge of the laws of each place within their own country that they might travel to, given both the volume and obscurity of this information.


Are you saying that the variance in way NY or NYC handles the gun laws is the problem or that guns should be legal to carry in NYC because of reciprocity and the second amendment.

See this first:
Link
See this second:
Link

If you are smart enough to buy a concealed holster and put a loaded gun it it, then you should be smart enough to understand that they are not allowed in all locations in that states.

Then surely you should know that state reciprocity laws are complex per the second website.

/Unless gun rights are just special, where other things are not?
 
2013-07-24 02:05:34 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: JesseL: Yes, you're a master of tautology. I was just pointing out that "carrying a pistol illegally" doesn't always mean "carrying without a valid and recognized permit in your current jurisdiction".

/owns 12 handguns, has a carry permit, type 03 & type 07 Federal Firearms Licenses
//despises pissing matches

More of "wanted to lead off some trolls claims of being a liberal who hates guns" type deal.


My apologies. I'm a bit irritable this morning.
 
2013-07-24 02:07:19 PM  

Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.


Another NY state gun owner trying to pretend that he doesn't know the laws are different in NYC.
 
2013-07-24 02:11:07 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: dittybopper

I mean, would you be surprised if the National Hot Rod Association started becoming more politically active in the wake of attempts to ban 2 seater sports cars, cars with racing stripes, and cars capable of exceeding the national speed limit? I certainly wouldn't be.


I don't recall saying or even implying that I was surprised. It was more of a "wish they still did stuff like that" kind of sentiment. They used to have a good mission as an organization and I would like to see them return to their roots.


You haven't been paying attention, then:  They do *BOTH*.

The NRA still does all of the safety education, etc. stuff it always did.   They spend a bunch of money on things like giving grants to gun ranges to improve safety.  They have extensive training programs for shooters and a certification process for firearms instructors.

The political stuff is "in addition to", not "instead of".  But you wouldn't know that they way it's talked about.
 
2013-07-24 02:14:32 PM  

probesport: Anybody with a CCW/CPL should be aware of reciprocity laws if they travel. Even if you aren't allowed to carry you can find the legal method to transport.


The only reciprocity law that there should be is that like a driver's license, what was issued in one state will work when visiting another.
 
2013-07-24 02:16:24 PM  
The fact that he was from the south is irrelevant. Last year a guy from Michigan was biatching that he couldn't bring his concealed gun into Canada. So instead of generalizing southern gun owners as idiots let's just agree to assume all gun owners are the same.
 
2013-07-24 02:22:54 PM  
dittybopper, ,
You haven't been paying attention, then: They do *BOTH*.
The NRA still does all of the safety education, etc. stuff it always did. They spend a bunch of money on things like giving grants to gun ranges to improve safety. They have extensive training programs for shooters and a certification process for firearms instructors.
The political stuff is "in addition to", not "instead of". But you wouldn't know that they way it's talked about.


I am pretty sure the IRA, Hamas and the Italian Mafia has provided social services in addition to the goals pursued by it's political wing.

The NRA may have started with something else but now they are just another political lobbying organization working for gun makers tied into the Republican party.

I don't mean to call them a terror organization through association, but any 'Eddie Eagle' PR campaigns are secondary. This is not their main goal, it is only PR for the political wing of their organization.
 
2013-07-24 02:30:08 PM  
Oh noes, a gun! Let's all panic even though it's just a regular guy who did not point it at anyone or make any threats. Someone should probably sue over the trauma of a gun being in their general vicinity.
 
2013-07-24 02:31:13 PM  

Richard C Stanford: In all fairness, the guy DID ask if there was a place to store his pistol. It's not like he barged in and started waving it around like a retard. I just think its kind of stupid that he got arrested. Your tax dollers at work folks.





In a just world people would be given the benefit of a doubt when they try to make good on an honest mistake. The problem is it then deprives the authorities of the headline they'd prefer.
What they don't realize is the end result is far worse for their efforts.

A common thug wouldn't be cooling his heels in jail, and he'd still carry his gun wherever he wanted, because he doesn't care about the law or trust the cops. He would have devised a better plan than asking security for advice.
The end result is one less good guy with a gun, fewer gun owners coming to the city, and dozens of bad guys still armed with the intent to use their weapons.
 
2013-07-24 02:33:13 PM  

dittybopper


You haven't been paying attention, then: They do *BOTH*.

The NRA still does all of the safety education, etc. stuff it always did. They spend a bunch of money on things like giving grants to gun ranges to improve safety. They have extensive training programs for shooters and a certification process for firearms instructors.

The political stuff is "in addition to", not "instead of". But you wouldn't know that they way it's talked about.


That's a fair assessment: I am not an NRA member and I do not follow them in any way except via news items from time to time. However, here is my experience so far:

I get a membership solicitation from them (snail mail) several times a year. Every single piece is political and leads off with "Your 2nd Amendment rights are being taken away!" or some variant thereof. I have not received anything that describes their range grants or their training, etc. If they're still actively involved in those things they do a damn good job of hiding it, or at least in prioritizing the political angle over everything else.
 
2013-07-24 02:35:56 PM  

WalkingCarpet: Most people in NYC are perfectly fine with the restrictive carry laws that are in place.


Coincidentally, this is also a perfectly valid reason to sneer and be an asshole to anyone with NY plates that you might happen to come across...
 
2013-07-24 02:38:15 PM  

OwnTheRide: Thunderboy: Tommy Moo: New York does allow for concealed carry with a permit:

Good luck getting one.

Actually, not difficult in upstate NY if you have a clean record, but it does take about 6 months and there's a lot of foolish hoops to jump through.


Sorry, my comment was specific to NYC.  Of course it's several orders of magnitude easier once you are beyond city limits.
 
2013-07-24 02:40:33 PM  

WalkingCarpet: "Oh boy, excuse me, killed or menaced by not killed by or menaced with.  I guess that little brain fart makes my entire argument null and void."


You know what? You're right - I had no reason to get snarky there, and it didn't add any value to the discussion. My apologies.


"And the car analogy is another one I hate.  The main purpose of a car is to get people from point A to point B, the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another living being."


That is patently bollocks. The main purpose of a firearm -- we're talking here about handguns that people carry on their person -- is to protect their owners from threat. (Note that the vast majority of firearms accomplish this purpose admirably without ever being taken out of their holsters.) A firearm can be misused like any other tool, but someone going postal and shooting six of their coworkers with a Glock isn't using it for it's "main purpose" any more than Julio Acevedo was using his BMW for its "main purpose" when he took out a Brooklyn couple driving to the hospital to give birth.

The car analogy is, in fact, quite appropriate. The reason that you bristle at it is that you (in all likelihood) own a car, rely on it, and are quite uncomfortable with any suggestion that you, too, should be restricted from owning or using something that's important to you because somebody else used one just like it in a harmful way.


"How about this?  You don't like NYC's gun laws?  Then please don't go there.  Most people in NYC are perfectly fine with the restrictive carry laws that are in place."

I live here, thanks. And just like anywhere else, most people in NYC are completely self-absorbed (until it comes to something like the soda "ban" that affects them directly or a populist cause like marriage equality) and are perfectly fine with restrictive laws that restrict...somebody else. That's why nobody said anything when Bloomberg outlawed smoking in city parks and there isn't much of an outcry when the toll on the GW Bridge goes up to $13 per car -- because most people here don't smoke or drive. Just because most people are perfectly fine with something, it doesn't mean it's right.
 
2013-07-24 02:51:31 PM  

spmkk: Just because most people are perfectly fine with something, it doesn't mean it's right.


Well I agree with you there, just disagree that it isn't right.

And I've lived or worked near or in NYC all my life and not once have I ever been there and thought, "you know what would make me feel safer?  If more people were carrying guns".

But that's just me of course.
 
2013-07-24 02:53:56 PM  

Enemabag Jones: As much as I understand that NY gun laws are pretty unforgiving....

Yet another tourist brings his gun from out of state into another state, not just anther state, but NY, without checking the gun laws assuming everything will be ok.

I am very reasonable, but you would think that at some point people would farking learn not to assume one state has the same law as the next.

/Note, lack of knowledge about a law is not considered a reasonable defense in other threads, why should it be the same for something concerning gun laws.


Bet you a bright shiny nickel that this guy's defenders are ALLLLLLL about the States Rights. I don't think I have ever seen any principle as inconsistently applied as the principle of states rights.

/Tenth Amendment! Tenth Amendment!
 
2013-07-24 02:56:53 PM  

Tomji: gittlebass: another gun owner who has no idea about how the laws differ in states, i am shocked

They shouldn't really be all that different.
Does free speech differ from state to state?


Yes - see various laws about obscenity, public nudity and pornography as examples. And in the last few years you can see even it more of it in how various state legislatures have started passing laws to limit protests near or in the state capitol. It can even vary within a state based on local ordinances for disorderly conduct.
 
2013-07-24 02:58:18 PM  

ideamaster: It is cheaper to throw the gun away, than to risk jail time.


I'd hate to waste a perfectly good gun though. Better to give it to some deserving local youth.
 
2013-07-24 03:01:24 PM  

spmkk: That is patently bollocks. The main purpose of a firearm -- we're talking here about handguns that people carry on their person -- is to protect their owners from threat. (Note that the vast majority of firearms accomplish this purpose admirably without ever being taken out of their holsters.) A firearm can be misused like any other tool, but someone going postal and shooting six of their coworkers with a Glock isn't using it for it's "main purpose" any more than Julio Acevedo was using his BMW for its "main purpose" when he took out a Brooklyn couple driving to the hospital to give birth.

The car analogy is, in fact, quite appropriate. The reason that you bristle at it is that you (in all likelihood) own a car, rely on it, and are quite uncomfortable with any suggestion that you, too, should be restricted from owning or using something that's important to you because somebody else used one just like it in a harmful way.


I've see lame sophistry, but your little comedy bit above is definitely candidate for politics tab willful blindness comment of the day.
A car is a tool designed to transport people and cargo safely, usually over roads. That's its purpose.

Firearms are tools designed to launch bullets at high speeds. That is their purpose. They aren't fashion accessories, security blankets, first aid kits, or metaphors.
Somebody going postal and shooting six coworkers with a Glock is using that firearm precisely for its designed purpose.
 
2013-07-24 03:02:11 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: dittybopper

You haven't been paying attention, then: They do *BOTH*.

The NRA still does all of the safety education, etc. stuff it always did. They spend a bunch of money on things like giving grants to gun ranges to improve safety. They have extensive training programs for shooters and a certification process for firearms instructors.

The political stuff is "in addition to", not "instead of". But you wouldn't know that they way it's talked about.


That's a fair assessment: I am not an NRA member and I do not follow them in any way except via news items from time to time. However, here is my experience so far:

I get a membership solicitation from them (snail mail) several times a year. Every single piece is political and leads off with "Your 2nd Amendment rights are being taken away!" or some variant thereof. I have not received anything that describes their range grants or their training, etc. If they're still actively involved in those things they do a damn good job of hiding it, or at least in prioritizing the political angle over everything else.


Here's the thing, though:  If you join, they can't spend any of your membership dues for political lobbying.  You have to make a separate donation to the NRA-ILA if you want money to go to the political wing.

So you can be a member of the NRA, and fully support their mission of firearm safety education, and not send them a dime towards the political stuff.
 
2013-07-24 03:02:29 PM  

spmkk: there isn't much of an outcry when the toll on the GW Bridge goes up to $13 per car


Goddamn, I remember when the toll for the Throgs Neck Bridge was 75 cents.
 
2013-07-24 03:03:15 PM  
I can't help it.. I just want to say fark this guy, if he doesn't do his due diligence regarding gun laws in a place that is notoriously strict, then he shouldn't have one in the first place.

Farking moran.

/I like guns
 
2013-07-24 03:04:48 PM  

LineNoise: Typically if you are clean NYC will also let you plead these down to something that doesn't require jail. Provided you don't turn it into a high profile thing that they can use to raise awareness, like cry to a paper, or be a football player who shoots himself in the foot in a club. Then they will throw the book at you.

Also CSB: when unsure on the law or if there is ambiguity, you act on the side of caution. For instance, there used to be a gun range that was walking distance from my house. The law here on transporting a gun was very vague as to if it was ok for me to just walk there with it. So I would drive there, placing the gun in my trunk. Even though it wasn't uncommon for me to end up with a parking space that was just as far as if I walked there to begin with.


Hmmmm... Hoboken?
 
2013-07-24 03:07:38 PM  

peasandcarrots: Enemabag Jones: As much as I understand that NY gun laws are pretty unforgiving....

Yet another tourist brings his gun from out of state into another state, not just anther state, but NY, without checking the gun laws assuming everything will be ok.

I am very reasonable, but you would think that at some point people would farking learn not to assume one state has the same law as the next.

/Note, lack of knowledge about a law is not considered a reasonable defense in other threads, why should it be the same for something concerning gun laws.

Bet you a bright shiny nickel that this guy's defenders are ALLLLLLL about the States Rights. I don't think I have ever seen any principle as inconsistently applied as the principle of states rights.

/Tenth Amendment! Tenth Amendment!


Settled definitively in favor of the supremacy clause in the case of Lee v. Grant (April 9, 1865).
 
2013-07-24 03:15:07 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Firearms are tools designed to launch bullets at high speeds. That is their purpose. They aren't fashion accessories, security blankets, first aid kits, or metaphors.
Somebody going postal and shooting six coworkers with a Glock is using that firearm precisely for its designed purpose.


So farking what?

Somebody who uses a Glock to shoot an attacker intent on murdering them is using it for its designed purpose too. The same goes for someone using it to shoot a paper target at a shooting range.

No matter what the designed purpose of a gun is, you can't get away from the fact that it is incapable of doing anything by itself. It can be used by a person for good or evil (and so can a car) and all the moral responsibility for that use lies with the person using it, not the gun itself.
 
2013-07-24 03:17:05 PM  

dittybopper


Here's the thing, though: If you join, they can't spend any of your membership dues for political lobbying. You have to make a separate donation to the NRA-ILA if you want money to go to the political wing.

So you can be a member of the NRA, and fully support their mission of firearm safety education, and not send them a dime towards the political stuff.


That's very interesting (seriously); thanks for the tip!

Now if they can just stop having nutbar spokespeople like LaPierre...
 
2013-07-24 03:21:21 PM  

Richard C Stanford: In all fairness, the guy DID ask if there was a place to store his pistol. It's not like he barged in and started waving it around like a retard. I just think its kind of stupid that he got arrested. Your tax dollers at work folks.


He got arrested because he comitted a felony.   It's akin to the idiots who report their drug dealer for ripping them off on a deal.

Now, the man did not threaten anyone and was reasonable with security from what we know so I hope they go light on him for a stupid mistake.   Dumb mistakes happen.

Now to those talking about forcing states to recognize out of state gun permits: the main hurdle to such a thing is checking eligibility when out of state.    State traffic departments have methods to  check out of state drivers' licenses as each state maintains a database that, by regulation, must be accessible to other police forces (as well as medical and national forces, of course.)   The laws between states for driving vary a lot less than those for gun ownership as well.

The only way to really implement a cross state system for gun permits would be building something only a step below a national registry and that's something the gun rights groups would rally against.
 
2013-07-24 03:22:41 PM  

KelvinTheClown: Remember, gay marriage licenses from state to state will be honored, but your gun permit is not.


As far as I know, a marriage license will not fire a bullet into my chest.

I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so.
 
2013-07-24 03:22:45 PM  

Enemabag Jones: any 'Eddie Eagle' PR campaigns are secondary. This is not their main goal, it is only PR for the political wing of their organization.


Secondary?  You can read the annual report of the NRA Foundation.  Seems to me that a cash outlay of $22 million in 2012 for the non-political safety and education programs is pretty significant compared to the $18 million the NRA-ILA spent on the 2012 elections.

Yes, they spent more on the safety stuff than politics.  But you don't *SEE* that unless you're actually someone who shoots.  Everyone can see their TV and print ads, but the only people who see the effects of a grant to a gun range to upgrade their indoor air system or backstop, or to increase the height of their berm, or (as in the case at the range where I'm a member) to pay for a new side berm to help keep bullets from straying off the rifle range are the people who actually *USE* those things.
 
2013-07-24 03:24:26 PM  

dittybopper: compared to the $18 million the NRA-ILA spent on the 2012 elections.


Fark choked on the link:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/cnns-confounding-prediction-n r as-failed-electio/191911
 
2013-07-24 03:26:26 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: dittybopper

Here's the thing, though: If you join, they can't spend any of your membership dues for political lobbying. You have to make a separate donation to the NRA-ILA if you want money to go to the political wing.

So you can be a member of the NRA, and fully support their mission of firearm safety education, and not send them a dime towards the political stuff.


That's very interesting (seriously); thanks for the tip!

Now if they can just stop having nutbar spokespeople like LaPierre...


They will still solicit the living fark out of you for donations to the NRA-ILA, however.  But you don't have to send them the money.

/Member for 3 years back in the mid 1990's.
//Was also a member of the ARRL.
 
2013-07-24 03:27:34 PM  

JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH: Firearms are tools designed to launch bullets at high speeds. That is their purpose. They aren't fashion accessories, security blankets, first aid kits, or metaphors.
Somebody going postal and shooting six coworkers with a Glock is using that firearm precisely for its designed purpose.

So farking what?

Somebody who uses a Glock to shoot an attacker intent on murdering them is using it for its designed purpose too. The same goes for someone using it to shoot a paper target at a shooting range.

No matter what the designed purpose of a gun is, you can't get away from the fact that it is incapable of doing anything by itself. It can be used by a person for good or evil (and so can a car) and all the moral responsibility for that use lies with the person using it, not the gun itself.


The discussion was whether a car analogy was appropriate for firearms. spmkk claimed that the purpose of firearms is not to launch bullets at lethal velocities and used this as his counterargument: "The main purpose of a firearm -- we're talking here about handguns that people carry on their person -- is to protect their owners from threat." You've agreed that that kind of handwaving does not change what firearms are designed to do.
 
2013-07-24 03:28:03 PM  

mokinokaro: The only way to really implement a cross state system for gun permits would be building something only a step below a national registry


You mean like NICS?
 
2013-07-24 03:28:27 PM  

Skanque: Are you completely naive? You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the really strict gun laws in NYC?


Are you completely naive? You live in The United States and you don't know about the Second Amendment?
 
2013-07-24 03:28:56 PM  

ideamaster: It is cheaper to throw the gun away, than to risk jail time.


images1.wikia.nocookie.net

"But always take the cannoli or the wife'll have your stones."
 
2013-07-24 03:28:58 PM  

dittybopper


Yes, they spent more on the safety stuff than politics. But you don't *SEE* that unless you're actually someone who shoots. Everyone can see their TV and print ads, but the only people who see the effects of a grant to a gun range to upgrade their indoor air system or backstop, or to increase the height of their berm, or (as in the case at the range where I'm a member) to pay for a new side berm to help keep bullets from straying off the rifle range are the people who actually *USE* those things.


Counterpoint: I am someone who shoots but does not do so at any NRA sponsored or funded ranges. I shoot at ranges run by state wildlife management.

It's good the NRA is involved in that stuff, though.
 
2013-07-24 03:33:16 PM  

WalkingCarpet: , the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another living being.


Wrong. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet when triggered. Where that bullet goes and what happens because of it is up to the user.
 
2013-07-24 03:33:29 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH: Firearms are tools designed to launch bullets at high speeds. That is their purpose. They aren't fashion accessories, security blankets, first aid kits, or metaphors.
Somebody going postal and shooting six coworkers with a Glock is using that firearm precisely for its designed purpose.

So farking what?

Somebody who uses a Glock to shoot an attacker intent on murdering them is using it for its designed purpose too. The same goes for someone using it to shoot a paper target at a shooting range.

No matter what the designed purpose of a gun is, you can't get away from the fact that it is incapable of doing anything by itself. It can be used by a person for good or evil (and so can a car) and all the moral responsibility for that use lies with the person using it, not the gun itself.

The discussion was whether a car analogy was appropriate for firearms. spmkk claimed that the purpose of firearms is not to launch bullets at lethal velocities and used this as his counterargument: "The main purpose of a firearm -- we're talking here about handguns that people carry on their person -- is to protect their owners from threat." You've agreed that that kind of handwaving does not change what firearms are designed to do.


My point is that "designed purpose" is a red herring. It's utterly meaningless.

What matters is what people do with it.
 
2013-07-24 03:34:20 PM  

fredklein: WalkingCarpet: , the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another living being.

Wrong. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet

at a lethal velocity when triggered. Where that bullet goes and what happens because of it is up to the user.FTFY
 
2013-07-24 03:37:12 PM  
Isn't this the third or fourth time this has happened in the last year or two?  I swear, this story keeps popping up here.
 
2013-07-24 03:38:20 PM  

JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH: JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH: Firearms are tools designed to launch bullets at high speeds. That is their purpose. They aren't fashion accessories, security blankets, first aid kits, or metaphors.
Somebody going postal and shooting six coworkers with a Glock is using that firearm precisely for its designed purpose.

So farking what?

Somebody who uses a Glock to shoot an attacker intent on murdering them is using it for its designed purpose too. The same goes for someone using it to shoot a paper target at a shooting range.

No matter what the designed purpose of a gun is, you can't get away from the fact that it is incapable of doing anything by itself. It can be used by a person for good or evil (and so can a car) and all the moral responsibility for that use lies with the person using it, not the gun itself.

The discussion was whether a car analogy was appropriate for firearms. spmkk claimed that the purpose of firearms is not to launch bullets at lethal velocities and used this as his counterargument: "The main purpose of a firearm -- we're talking here about handguns that people carry on their person -- is to protect their owners from threat." You've agreed that that kind of handwaving does not change what firearms are designed to do.

My point is that "designed purpose" is a red herring. It's utterly meaningless.

What matters is what people do with it.


A gunsmith who doesn't think that the designed purpose of a tool is relevant?
So when you have to drive nails, you're totally OK with somebody handing you a hacksaw.
/Good to know.
 
2013-07-24 03:39:47 PM  

fredklein: Skanque: Are you completely naive? You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the really strict gun laws in NYC?

Are you completely naive? You live in The United States and you don't know about the Second Amendment?


The Second Amendment, even under the most recent interpretations by the Supreme Court, does not entitle a person to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access to all weapons or the use thereof. It does not immediately nullify all gun-related laws of any kind. I am sorry that you were apparently the victim of some accident that caused sufficient TBI for you to believe such a thing.
 
2013-07-24 03:44:20 PM  

JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH: Firearms are tools designed to launch bullets at high speeds. That is their purpose. They aren't fashion accessories, security blankets, first aid kits, or metaphors.
Somebody going postal and shooting six coworkers with a Glock is using that firearm precisely for its designed purpose.

So farking what?

Somebody who uses a Glock to shoot an attacker intent on murdering them is using it for its designed purpose too. The same goes for someone using it to shoot a paper target at a shooting range.

No matter what the designed purpose of a gun is, you can't get away from the fact that it is incapable of doing anything by itself. It can be used by a person for good or evil (and so can a car) and all the moral responsibility for that use lies with the person using it, not the gun itself.


Any weapon is incapable of acting on its own. For example, C-4 requires a person to operate a detonator. This does not make it any safer or less destructive. You may say, "But only bad men use it for bad purposes." Yet I am glad we have restrictions on explosives. I am sorry you cannot ordinarily walk down to the range and explode targets, but I think it is better that we restrict high grade explosives.
 
2013-07-24 03:48:42 PM  
Agree or disagree with the idea of national CCW reciprocity, but trying to differentiate car licensing from firearm licensing on the premise of design is somewhat silly.

Products are seldom based on the designed intent of the product. More often, regulation is based on hazard/risk presented. Automobiles are HEAVILY regulated because they are, quite frankly, dangerous devices. Likewise, firearms are heavily regulated because they are also dangerous devices. Neither is based on the intent of the design, but rather the reality of their capability. You cannot escape the reality that significantly more people are injured by vehicles than by firearms by simply stating that deaths from automotive crashes are OK because the car wasn't meant to do that (which I might argue with - many cars are designed to be far faster than is safe in most driving scenarios). Those people still died, whether the car and its operator wanted to kill them or not. The hazard is still real and present.

Further, both cars and firearms have federal and state levels of regulation that are capable, and can drastically impact the safety of said vehicle and their use.

Some states limit modifications that can be installed on a vehicle (bumper height limits on trucks, auxiliary lighting that can blind other drivers), while others don't. Some states allow use of a cellphone to call or text, others limit these functions. Some states let you drive 70+ on the highway, others limit you to 55.  Some states don't require vehicle inspections for instance, leading to the possibility of a HIGHLY dangerous vehicle in disrepair. Some states require drivers education, others don't. Some states don't even require you to carry insurance. Any number of these can lead to a car and/or driver freely traveling to other states and endanger its residents, yet drivers licenses are still nationally reciprocal. I honestly think even our best drivers education systems are inadequate and that the vast majority of drivers are given autonomy long before they are capable enough to handle it, but we as a nation are fully on board with a largely variable,nationally reciprocated licensing and automotive regulatory system.

I don't see such a glaring difference between the danger or legal status of this comparison to justify the reactions above to someone comparing these two things.
 
2013-07-24 03:51:25 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: dittybopper

Yes, they spent more on the safety stuff than politics. But you don't *SEE* that unless you're actually someone who shoots. Everyone can see their TV and print ads, but the only people who see the effects of a grant to a gun range to upgrade their indoor air system or backstop, or to increase the height of their berm, or (as in the case at the range where I'm a member) to pay for a new side berm to help keep bullets from straying off the rifle range are the people who actually *USE* those things.


Counterpoint: I am someone who shoots but does not do so at any NRA sponsored or funded ranges. I shoot at ranges run by state wildlife management.

It's good the NRA is involved in that stuff, though.


Look through that document.  It's entirely possible that your state funded range has accepted NRA grants for improvements, upgrades, or youth programs.

For example, in 2012, the NRA gave a grant to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Law Enforcement.
 
2013-07-24 03:52:26 PM  

radiumsoup: Well, duh - guns at the Empire State building are more dangerous than guns elsewhere . . . It has nothing to do with self defense, or anything about the training or intent of the person carrying, it's all about how deadly these things become in certain geographic places. What a moron.


Well, in fairness to us New Yorkers, there seems to be a lot of collateral damage when people use guns around the Empire State Building. Granted, that's because the NYPD likes to just shoot wildly until anyone/anything in the vicinity stops moving...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting

The gun laws for people visiting New York City are quite simple to understand: you can't bring your gun. End of story. And the people who are authorized to bring guns to NYC (federal agents, etc.) would never have any doubt about it.

But maybe someone can explain to me why people always feel the need to ask where they check their gun when they enter a place. Is states where you can carry do you often need to check a gun at buildings or events?
 
2013-07-24 03:53:30 PM  
iambronco: Regulation ofProducts are seldom based on the designed intent of the product. More often, regulation is based on hazard/risk presented. Automobiles are HEAVILY regulated because they are, quite frankly, dangerous devices. 

Oops
 
Displayed 50 of 235 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report