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.

(MLive.com)   Proponents of Michigan's new open-carry gun law say they're loving their new sense of freedom, and they just wish the cops would remember that open carry is now legal and not to stage high-risk takedowns every time there's a gun call   (mlive.com) divider line 509
    More: Followup, Grand Rapids Press, gun laws  
•       •       •

2054 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jan 2014 at 3:42 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-14 04:56:56 PM

Corvus: So you are for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal gun owner is this responsible?


Hah.  Close enough.
 
2014-01-14 04:57:05 PM

Saiga410: Corvus: Kit Fister: Drinking booze is legal. Drinking booze and then driving is illegal. Owning/carrying a gun is legal. Using a gun in a reckless or criminal manner is illegal.

Or are you somehow suggesting that mere ownership or carrying of a firearm at all is tantamount to the criminally negligent use of booze?

That's circular logic. You are saying it's the legality of it therefor it's right.

So if gun carrying was illegal you would be ok with that because you only care about the legality of it right?

We can show statistically you are more likely to injure another person drunk driving but given the legalization of open and/or concealed carry in every state with no increase in criminal activity.... where is the need to make carrying illegal?


Not arguing that. He  said gun laws will not git rid of all gun crime. Anti-drunk driving laws don't get rid of all drunk driving so I asked him if he is for repealing those too.
 
2014-01-14 04:57:19 PM

Tigger: You keep talking about responsible gun owners.

How can you tell if someone is a responsible gun owner? Should there be training and testing to ensure someone is a responsible gun owner?


There is. You have to get a permit to open carry, you have to get a permit to conceal carry. To do that, you have to go through the legal methods of doing so which vary from state to state. Some states are stringent on how they give out permits. Some states are not so stringent.

If you are given a permit to open carry or conceal carry, that permit says that the state's law enforcement branch has certified you as a responsible gun owner since you'd have had to pass that state's tests for said certification. The permit is the state's way of saying you are a responsible gun owner, since you are doing everything legally.

And if you choose to use your firearm in an illegal fashion, then you get that permit revoked. Since you would have demonstrated you are not a responsible gun owner.
 
2014-01-14 04:57:57 PM

Farker Soze: His reply will probably be that since everyone can't act that responsibly, no one should have that privilege, while ignoring the argument that since someone might drink and drive no one can drink, because he probably likes a little drink now and then. Typical authoritarian minded selfishness.


Once again the "they want to take everyone's guns away!" strawman that I already pointed out was a lie.
 
2014-01-14 04:58:19 PM

EdNortonsTwin: The reason people open carry is......................it's been a secret until now...................because it's funny to watch people wet themselves when they see a safely holstered pistol.

I'd open carry from time to time if it was legal here.

/ 8.5" thanks for asking.


We live in a world where crazy assholes regularly go on shooting sprees.  You'll have to forgive the human race for not being mind readers who are always able to determine, with the merest glance, whether a person is engaged in peaceful open carry or whether they are choosing the best moment to open up on the crowd.
 
2014-01-14 04:58:20 PM

Kit Fister: Corvus: Kit Fister: Corvus: Well except other people can shoot you with their gun and kill you. So that part is not your own choice now is it?

Considering that can happen just about anywhere, even the UK  (albeit much less likely), then I don't see how that's ever a reasonably sound thought.

You still have a greater chance, in the US, of dying due to a drunk driver, drowning in a pool, or having a heart attack than you do getting shot. But yes, do continue to fear the unlikely.

So then we should make drunk driving legal right because it still happens even though its illegal?

Uhm, you do realize that, like drunk driving, using a firearm to assault someone without a very very good reason (self defense) is already illegal, right? And that the use of a firearm in the commission of any other crime is a huge pile-on charge, right?

Drinking booze is legal. Drinking booze and then driving is illegal. Owning/carrying a gun is legal. Using a gun in a reckless or criminal manner is illegal.

Or are you somehow suggesting that mere ownership or carrying of a firearm at all is tantamount to the criminally negligent use of booze?


Yes he is... But he's not "afraid" of guns, of course...
 
2014-01-14 05:00:20 PM

Farker Soze: Corvus: So you are for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal gun owner is this responsible?

Hah.  Close enough.


Huh?

So holding people to their own words about Responsible gun ownership is "banning all guns".

Yu think not letting crazy people have guns and background checks is 100% the same as "banning all guns".

Wow you are brainwashed by the NRA.
 
2014-01-14 05:00:43 PM

Corvus: What has that to do at all with the conversation?

Lets go back to the subject before. You said gun crimes would still happen with gun laws.

Drunk driving still happens with drunk driving laws, do you think those laws should be repealed too then?

(sorry you changed the subject on me and I feel for it)


Gun crimes would still happen with gun laws (and I'm in favor of many gun laws, such as safety training requirements, background checks, and so on). Gun crimes happen with or without guns. People have the right to own guns, and should always have that right (with basic safety training, which is always a good idea, and universal background checks/a universally available system for conducting background checks in general). Booze crimes happen. We banned booze, and the booze crimes didn't stop. People have the right to drink booze, and should always have that right.

Likewise, whether guns, knives, booze, or any other thing, if people use them recklessly and irresponsibly, they should be held accountable and punished. I've never said that we should make either gun crimes or booze crimes legal, just enforce the law and charge those who break it.

The point of bringing up drunk driving-related deaths anyway is to compare deaths due to an illegal behavior: Driving while intoxicated vs. mishandling a firearm. And under those strict points of comparison, primary functions not withstanding, you have a higher chance of dying due to misuse of a vehicle in a criminal manner than you do of dying by a firearm misused in a criminal manner.

The fact that a firearm was made to kill is an emotional point only: A firearm was designed as a kinetic projectile launch platform. It was designed to supplant the bow and arrow and deliver effect on target from a longer range than arm's length. We had spears, then we developed the bow to do the damage at a longer range. The bow was awkward, so we developed the firearm. And we have been improving the firearm. I expect that sometime in the next century, we'll find a way to eliminate the need for kinetic projectiles and move on to plasma weapons or some other sci-fi tech.  When used safely, the firearm provides for enjoyment in the form of long-range competition, hunting, and so on. It also provides a convenient force multiplier for those who find themselves in a dangerous situation.

It in and of itself is a neutral technology. It can be used for good or ill, depending on the intent of the wielder, and it is extremely disingenuous to apply a negative connotation to the object when it is the will of its wielder that commits the crime.

Wake me up when you have a means of fixing human nature to prevent them from committing violence due to ego and emotion. Until then, I'll carry a firearm because I'm not physically capable of fending off a threat, killing dinner, or defending my livestock from coyotes without some form of force multiplier.
 
2014-01-14 05:00:59 PM

Mikey1969: ikanreed: Mikey1969: Staff also were taught how to react when someone open-carries into a building because "it's something that's coming out more and more," Bagladi said.

You know how I react? I don't. I go on about my business. It's amazing how farking easy it is, no training is needed.

Until a lump of copper is lodged in your parietal lobe.  Then you can't react.  It's the perfect solution.

How weird... 44 years, all of them in states where carrying is permitted, and the last 20 or so years where concealed carry is permitted. Not once have I seen a person draw their weapon, and not once I have I known anyone else to have been around where someone drew their weapon. I'm sure you see it daily though, right? Any day you get home having dodged a bullet is one less trip to the ER.


Come on man, it was a joke.  The relevant points are all quite clearly encoded in ownership vs violent death rates, controlling for other variables.  I know that there's less than a 1% chance of any given person dying of a gunshot wound.
 
2014-01-14 05:01:39 PM

Mikey1969: Kit Fister: Corvus: Kit Fister: Corvus: Well except other people can shoot you with their gun and kill you. So that part is not your own choice now is it?

Considering that can happen just about anywhere, even the UK  (albeit much less likely), then I don't see how that's ever a reasonably sound thought.

You still have a greater chance, in the US, of dying due to a drunk driver, drowning in a pool, or having a heart attack than you do getting shot. But yes, do continue to fear the unlikely.

So then we should make drunk driving legal right because it still happens even though its illegal?

Uhm, you do realize that, like drunk driving, using a firearm to assault someone without a very very good reason (self defense) is already illegal, right? And that the use of a firearm in the commission of any other crime is a huge pile-on charge, right?

Drinking booze is legal. Drinking booze and then driving is illegal. Owning/carrying a gun is legal. Using a gun in a reckless or criminal manner is illegal.

Or are you somehow suggesting that mere ownership or carrying of a firearm at all is tantamount to the criminally negligent use of booze?

Yes he is... But he's not "afraid" of guns, of course...


You might want to look back. It was his analogy, not mine.

I am afraid of guns. Now why are gun owners so afraid to be out in public without a gun?
 
2014-01-14 05:02:15 PM

Corvus: Mikey1969: Kit Fister: Corvus: Kit Fister: Corvus: Well except other people can shoot you with their gun and kill you. So that part is not your own choice now is it?

Considering that can happen just about anywhere, even the UK  (albeit much less likely), then I don't see how that's ever a reasonably sound thought.

You still have a greater chance, in the US, of dying due to a drunk driver, drowning in a pool, or having a heart attack than you do getting shot. But yes, do continue to fear the unlikely.

So then we should make drunk driving legal right because it still happens even though its illegal?

Uhm, you do realize that, like drunk driving, using a firearm to assault someone without a very very good reason (self defense) is already illegal, right? And that the use of a firearm in the commission of any other crime is a huge pile-on charge, right?

Drinking booze is legal. Drinking booze and then driving is illegal. Owning/carrying a gun is legal. Using a gun in a reckless or criminal manner is illegal.

Or are you somehow suggesting that mere ownership or carrying of a firearm at all is tantamount to the criminally negligent use of booze?

Yes he is... But he's not "afraid" of guns, of course...

You might want to look back. It was his analogy, not mine.

I am afraid of STUPID PEOPLE with guns. Now why are gun owners so afraid to be out in public without a gun?


FTFM
 
2014-01-14 05:02:15 PM

Weatherkiss: TFerWannaBe: Weatherkiss: A responsible gun owner will never pull their piece on a whim

I can't tell the difference between a responsible gun owner and a maniac until he pulls and starts shooting. Can you?

I can't. Neither can you or anyone else.

However, openly carrying means you are alerting everybody around you that you do have a gun, but that it is holstered securely on your belt. People might get concerned. But you are displaying to your other human beings that you have nothing to hide.

A 'lone wolf' will simply not care. And the 'lone wolf' scenario is the majority of the most brutal gun crimes.

Someone who open carries does that as a courtesy to everyone around them that they're dangerous, but they aren't malicious.


I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. You acknowledge that we can't tell the difference. Then you say a "lone wolf" won't care - implying that he may open carry, or may not. Then you go on to say that people who open carry aren't malicious; they just want to show people that they are carrying a dangerous weapon. This seems to contract your statement about the lone wolf - clearly some people who open carry may actually be malicious.

Regardless, I think you understand why some people, myself included, are uncomfortable with others walking around with firearms, even if they're in public view. It's impossible to tell if the armed person in front of you is a responsible citizen or some asshole who will shoot you over texting in a theatre (for which there is a special hell, but it's not the shooter's right to send him there).

I have no doubt that the vast majority of gun owners are mature and responsible, but since it's impossible to tell them from the maniacs and idiots until the bullets start to fly, how can I possibly support a policy permitting people to carry firearms in public?
 
2014-01-14 05:04:01 PM

Corvus: Saiga410: Corvus: Kit Fister: Drinking booze is legal. Drinking booze and then driving is illegal. Owning/carrying a gun is legal. Using a gun in a reckless or criminal manner is illegal.

Or are you somehow suggesting that mere ownership or carrying of a firearm at all is tantamount to the criminally negligent use of booze?

That's circular logic. You are saying it's the legality of it therefor it's right.

So if gun carrying was illegal you would be ok with that because you only care about the legality of it right?

We can show statistically you are more likely to injure another person drunk driving but given the legalization of open and/or concealed carry in every state with no increase in criminal activity.... where is the need to make carrying illegal?

Not arguing that. He  said gun laws will not git rid of all gun crime. Anti-drunk driving laws don't get rid of all drunk driving so I asked him if he is for repealing those too.


OK well I am asking you with the change in the carry laws over the past 30 years do you have any proof that open and or concealed carry endangers people or has a negative social consequence?  You seem to be against carrying in all forms.  What has formed your opinion to be against given the data out there?
 
2014-01-14 05:04:16 PM

Kit Fister: Wake me up when you have a means of fixing human nature to prevent them from committing violence due to ego and emotion. Until then, I'll carry a firearm because I'm not physically capable of fending off a threat, killing dinner, or defending my livestock from coyotes without some form of force multiplier.


Sorry where did I said I want to ban all guns?

Seem to have missed that again but that's the strawman you guys keep going after.
 
2014-01-14 05:04:54 PM

Saiga410: OK well I am asking you with the change in the carry laws over the past 30 years do you have any proof that open and or concealed carry endangers people or has a negative social consequence? You seem to be against carrying in all forms. What has formed your opinion to be against given the data out there?


Please show me where I said that and I will respond to that point.
 
2014-01-14 05:05:10 PM
But what troubles me most about this suggestion - and the general More Guns approach to social ills - is the absolute abandonment of civil society it represents. It gives up on the rule of law in favor of a Hobbesian "war of every man against every man" in which we no longer have genuine neighbors, only potential enemies. You may trust your neighbor for now - but you have high-powered recourse if he ever acts wrongly.

Whatever lack of open violence may be procured by this method is not peace or civil order, but rather a standoff, a Cold War maintained by the threat of mutually assured destruction. Moreover, the person who wishes to live this way, to maintain order at universal gunpoint, has an absolute trust in his own ability to use weapons wisely and well: he never for a moment asks whether he can be trusted with a gun. Of course he can! (But in literature we call this hubris.) Link
 
2014-01-14 05:05:48 PM

Corvus: Kit Fister: Corvus: I see so your a rugged bad ass who get's yourself in danger who needs to carry a gun while I am milk toast who would never find myself in a dangerous situation.

I am sorry I forget all gun nuts are "bad asses" that live a life of great danger (at least in their own minds).

I was jumped, beaten and stabbed while working ina  very bad neighborhood i had no choice but to be in. I had no firearm, and nearly died. Would you like the police report and the photos of the stab wounds?

What has that to do at all with the conversation?


I'd say that it has THIS to do with the conversation...

Your post:
    
Corvus: So gun nuts in this thread are both saying:
A) There is NO reason you should feel nervous others have a gun or that you need a gun on public.
B) I MUST have a gun in public because of all those reason above I said you don't need to have a gun.

Umm how does that make sense?
If you feel you have to have a gun, then why don't others have the same reason need to have a gun?


The response(With the relevant part bolded):

Kit Fister: Uhm, no. Gun nuts in this thread are stating that we choose to carry a firearm because it is a tool and likely to be useful should we need to defend ourselves. We recognize the fact that violent activities happen and would rather have the chance to fight back.
However, that being said, if you don't feel you need a gun, don't carry one. Chances are, none of us in this thread (except me, since I already have had to) will need a gun in their life for self defense, so you may choose your level of armament.


Your response:

Corvus: I see so your a rugged bad ass who get's yourself in danger who needs to carry a gun while I am milk toast who would never find myself in a dangerous situation.
I am sorry I forget all gun nuts are "bad asses" that live a life of great danger (at least in their own minds).


BTW: It's  Milquetoast
Anyway, KF responded:

    
Kit Fister: Corvus: I see so your a rugged bad ass who get's yourself in danger who needs to carry a gun while I am milk toast who would never find myself in a dangerous situation.
I am sorry I forget all gun nuts are "bad asses" that live a life of great danger (at least in their own minds).

I was jumped, beaten and stabbed while working ina  very bad neighborhood i had no choice but to be in. I had no firearm, and nearly died. Would you like the police report and the photos of the stab wounds?

In other words, that was the EXACT conversation, and you just didn't like being backed into a corner.

 
2014-01-14 05:06:21 PM
Weatherkiss:

There is. You have to get a permit to open carry, you have to get a permit to conceal carry. To do that, you have to go through the legal methods of doing so which vary from state to state. Some states are stringent on how they give out permits. Some states are not so stringent.

Excellent.

So why not make everyone that wants a gun take and pass that training?

Like the military does?
 
2014-01-14 05:07:24 PM

Tigger: Weatherkiss: The 2nd Amendment is a Pandora's Box that can't be closed. Guns will be out there and will be relatively easily to acquire whether legally or illegally. It doesn't matter what kind of gun control legislation we try to push through, nothing is going to have any affect on an individual's ability to grab a firearm and use it to commit a crime.

Except in Australia where they fixed it in about three weeks.

But as a former British colony with large areas of open space once dominated by an indigenous people that is now a successful first world economy of immigrants Australia has nothing in common with the USA.


But it's not in their constitution, now is it?  It's in ours, and the Supremes now agree with the pro-gun side.

If your solution to a problem requires an amendment to the constitution, then you don't actually have a solution to said problem.  So, banning guns is not going to happen; everybody (on both sides) needs to accept that fact and move on.
 
2014-01-14 05:07:31 PM

Corvus: So you are for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal gun owner is this responsible?


Right now to get a CCW permit, you are given a state and federal background check against outstanding crimes. To buy a gun from an FFL, you are required to undergo a federal background check. I have stated multiple times previously that I'm also okay with requiring universal background checks for firearms purchases not covered by FFL laws, with the proviso that the check be made free, and the law basically either require FFLs to provide background checks to all persons conducting private sales and requiring the same of Law Enforcement agencies, or making the NICS background check system available to all citizens, as it should be anyway, with requirements to maintain records of the sale under threat of harsh penalties for failure to comply.

I'm also not against requiring basic training of firearms owners. I have to undergo basic firearms safety and hunting safety training to obtain a license to hunt (including hunting on my own property), and providing such a requirement is no big impairment to my ability to exercise my rights. My quid pro quo for such a system would be the requirement of national reciprocity: a standard of safety training tantamount to the basic driver's test is set, and all states must recognize the certification as legitimate.
 
2014-01-14 05:08:03 PM

TFerWannaBe: Regardless, I think you understand why some people, myself included, are uncomfortable with others walking around with firearms, even if they're in public view. It's impossible to tell if the armed person in front of you is a responsible citizen or some asshole who will shoot you over texting in a theatre (for which there is a special hell, but it's not the shooter's right to send him there).


I see to you that's just life. You have to expect getting shot in a theater it just goes with your "rights"

You still never answered if you feel all gun owners should be responsible, are you against the laws that would make sure that gun owners where responsible like you said they should be?
 
2014-01-14 05:08:06 PM

Corvus: Farker Soze: Corvus: So you are for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal gun owner is this responsible?

Hah.  Close enough.

Huh?

So holding people to their own words about Responsible gun ownership is "banning all guns".

Yu think not letting crazy people have guns and background checks is 100% the same as "banning all guns".

Wow you are brainwashed by the NRA.


Ok, you don't want to take them all, just want to make it a privilege instead of a right, right?  I get it.  Still don't understand why you guys always throw around the drink driving comparison so much yet not one of you ever seems to be for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal drinker is responsible enough not to drink and drive.
 
2014-01-14 05:09:39 PM

Mikey1969: Corvus: Kit Fister: Corvus: I see so your a rugged bad ass who get's yourself in danger who needs to carry a gun while I am milk toast who would never find myself in a dangerous situation.

I am sorry I forget all gun nuts are "bad asses" that live a life of great danger (at least in their own minds).

I was jumped, beaten and stabbed while working ina  very bad neighborhood i had no choice but to be in. I had no firearm, and nearly died. Would you like the police report and the photos of the stab wounds?

What has that to do at all with the conversation?

I'd say that it has THIS to do with the conversation...

Your post:
    
Corvus: So gun nuts in this thread are both saying:
A) There is NO reason you should feel nervous others have a gun or that you need a gun on public.
B) I MUST have a gun in public because of all those reason above I said you don't need to have a gun.

Umm how does that make sense?
If you feel you have to have a gun, then why don't others have the same reason need to have a gun?

The response(With the relevant part bolded):

Kit Fister: Uhm, no. Gun nuts in this thread are stating that we choose to carry a firearm because it is a tool and likely to be useful should we need to defend ourselves. We recognize the fact that violent activities happen and would rather have the chance to fight back.
However, that being said, if you don't feel you need a gun, don't carry one. Chances are, none of us in this thread (except me, since I already have had to) will need a gun in their life for self defense, so you may choose your level of armament.

Your response:

Corvus: I see so your a rugged bad ass who get's yourself in danger who needs to carry a gun while I am milk toast who would never find myself in a dangerous situation.
I am sorry I forget all gun nuts are "bad asses" that live a life of great danger (at least in their own minds).

BTW: It's  Milquetoast
Anyway, KF responded:

    
Kit Fister: Corvus: I see so your a rugged bad ass who get's you ...


So what does that prove about gun laws again? Please explain it to us.
 
2014-01-14 05:09:41 PM

Mikey1969: Staff also were taught how to react when someone open-carries into a building because "it's something that's coming out more and more," Bagladi said.

You know how I react? I don't. I go on about my business. It's amazing how farking easy it is, no training is needed.


I dunno.  I see someone strapping in an area where they're not likely a hunter or something, more likely either a douchebag or some psycho?  I don't go there.  I leave.  Usually these subsets look exactly the same and I'm not about to cut my life short betting on the douchebag.

Businesses must love this shiat.
 
2014-01-14 05:10:14 PM

Farker Soze: Corvus: Farker Soze: Corvus: So you are for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal gun owner is this responsible?

Hah.  Close enough.

Huh?

So holding people to their own words about Responsible gun ownership is "banning all guns".

Yu think not letting crazy people have guns and background checks is 100% the same as "banning all guns".

Wow you are brainwashed by the NRA.

Ok, you don't want to take them all, just want to make it a privilege instead of a right, right?  I get it.  Still don't understand why you guys always throw around the drink driving comparison so much yet not one of you ever seems to be for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal drinker is responsible enough not to drink and drive.


HE BROUGHT UP DRUNK DRIVING NOT ME.

GO ASK HIM.
 
2014-01-14 05:10:26 PM

Kit Fister: The fact that a firearm was made to kill is an emotional point only: A firearm was designed as a kinetic projectile launch platform. It was designed to supplant the bow and arrow and deliver effect on target from a longer range than arm's length. We had spears, then we developed the bow to do the damage at a longer range. The bow was awkward, so we developed the firearm. And we have been improving the firearm. I expect that sometime in the next century, we'll find a way to eliminate the need for kinetic projectiles and move on to plasma weapons or some other sci-fi tech.  When used safely, the firearm provides for enjoyment in the form of long-range competition, hunting, and so on. It also provides a convenient force multiplier for those who find themselves in a dangerous situation.

It in and of itself is a neutral technology. It can be used for good or ill, depending on the intent of the wielder, and it is extremely disingenuous to apply a negative connotation to the object when it is the will of its wielder that commits the crime.


I wonder what bows and arrows were used for? What was the purpose of the spear? How bout the atlatl? The slingshot? The crossbow? I mean, if we're gonna put it all in a historical context, don't stop short and just mention the target practice. Own the whole story.
 
2014-01-14 05:11:25 PM

Corvus: So what does that prove about gun laws again? Please explain it to us.


It proves that bad shiat can happen to good people, so laws enabling good people to arm themselves and level the playing field against those who do bad things are beneficial.
 
2014-01-14 05:11:42 PM
Kit Fister:
I'm also not against requiring basic training of firearms owners. I have to undergo basic firearms safety and hunting safety training to obtain a license to hunt (including hunting on my own property), and providing such a requirement is no big impairment to my ability to exercise my rights. My quid pro quo for such a system would be the requirement of national reciprocity: a standard of safety training tantamount to the basic driver's test is set, and all states must recognize the certification as legitimate.

We agree.

The gun lobby went absolutely batshiat farking crazy when something half as stringent as this was suggested and it couldn't even get to a vote.
 
2014-01-14 05:11:43 PM

Farker Soze: Corvus: Farker Soze: Corvus: So you are for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal gun owner is this responsible?

Hah.  Close enough.

Huh?

So holding people to their own words about Responsible gun ownership is "banning all guns".

Yu think not letting crazy people have guns and background checks is 100% the same as "banning all guns".

Wow you are brainwashed by the NRA.

Ok, you don't want to take them all, just want to make it a privilege instead of a right, right?  I get it.  Still don't understand why you guys always throw around the drink driving comparison so much yet not one of you ever seems to be for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal drinker is responsible enough not to drink and drive.


Kit Fister: Corvus: Well except other people can shoot you with their gun and kill you. So that part is not your own choice now is it?

Considering that can happen just about anywhere, even the UK  (albeit much less likely), then I don't see how that's ever a reasonably sound thought.

You still have a greater chance, in the US, of dying due to a drunk driver, drowning in a pool, or having a heart attack than you do getting shot. But yes, do continue to fear the unlikely.



Right "I" brought it up.
 
2014-01-14 05:11:53 PM
A quick game of "Knock Out."  Look!  A free pistol!
 
2014-01-14 05:11:56 PM

Corvus: Farker Soze: Corvus: Farker Soze: Corvus: So you are for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal gun owner is this responsible?

Hah.  Close enough.

Huh?

So holding people to their own words about Responsible gun ownership is "banning all guns".

Yu think not letting crazy people have guns and background checks is 100% the same as "banning all guns".

Wow you are brainwashed by the NRA.

Ok, you don't want to take them all, just want to make it a privilege instead of a right, right?  I get it.  Still don't understand why you guys always throw around the drink driving comparison so much yet not one of you ever seems to be for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal drinker is responsible enough not to drink and drive.

HE BROUGHT UP DRUNK DRIVING NOT ME.

GO ASK HIM.


Well, are you for background checks on booze?  If not, why do you hate children?
 
2014-01-14 05:12:49 PM

Kit Fister: Corvus: So what does that prove about gun laws again? Please explain it to us.

It proves that bad shiat can happen to good people, so laws enabling good people to arm themselves and level the playing field against those who do bad things are beneficial.


So people should be carrying guns all the time in public. Sorry I thought earlier you said they didn't.
 
2014-01-14 05:13:15 PM

TFerWannaBe: Weatherkiss: TFerWannaBe: Weatherkiss: A responsible gun owner will never pull their piece on a whim

I can't tell the difference between a responsible gun owner and a maniac until he pulls and starts shooting. Can you?

I can't. Neither can you or anyone else.

However, openly carrying means you are alerting everybody around you that you do have a gun, but that it is holstered securely on your belt. People might get concerned. But you are displaying to your other human beings that you have nothing to hide.

A 'lone wolf' will simply not care. And the 'lone wolf' scenario is the majority of the most brutal gun crimes.

Someone who open carries does that as a courtesy to everyone around them that they're dangerous, but they aren't malicious.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. You acknowledge that we can't tell the difference. Then you say a "lone wolf" won't care - implying that he may open carry, or may not. Then you go on to say that people who open carry aren't malicious; they just want to show people that they are carrying a dangerous weapon. This seems to contract your statement about the lone wolf - clearly some people who open carry may actually be malicious.

Regardless, I think you understand why some people, myself included, are uncomfortable with others walking around with firearms, even if they're in public view. It's impossible to tell if the armed person in front of you is a responsible citizen or some asshole who will shoot you over texting in a theatre (for which there is a special hell, but it's not the shooter's right to send him there).

I have no doubt that the vast majority of gun owners are mature and responsible, but since it's impossible to tell them from the maniacs and idiots until the bullets start to fly, how can I possibly support a policy permitting people to carry firearms in public?


I know what I say sounds contradictory, because it largely depends on one thing and one thing only. Motive.

A 'lone wolf' who wants to go on a massacre is not going to want to incite panic until the bullets start flying. You are technically correct that someone bound and determined to kill a lot of innocent people can conceivably do so through legal channels. This has often been the case in reality.

At the same time, those people generally conceal their weapons and intents until the last possible moment when your targets are completely unaware there's a 'wolf in the fold'.

People who openly carry do so as a courtesy. They show they do not want to conceal their weapon. They want people to know they are there and what they are capable of doing if it comes to a last resort.

A lone wolf will typically not do so because their motives are not benign. They try to hide their intentions from the get go. This is why lone wolves are the hardest criminals to catch.

While it is true someone who openly carries could conceivably whip out their gun and go to town -- if they have the permit to carry to begin with, then it is the closest thing to 'promise' that the person is responsible. People will always have free will. But by having a permit, it minimizes the risks. You at least know the person attended the seminars/instructions as issued by the state and can reasonably assume they were drilled repeatedly on how to use their firearm responsibly.
 
2014-01-14 05:13:28 PM

rzrwiresunrise: I wonder what bows and arrows were used for? What was the purpose of the spear? How bout the atlatl? The slingshot? The crossbow? I mean, if we're gonna put it all in a historical context, don't stop short and just mention the target practice. Own the whole story.


Originally? All of the above were developed for killing dinner. Then man got the idea to use them against each other, too.  Caveman had a club to fend of the sabertooth tiger. He saw his buddy caveman with his woman, and used the club on him, too. And probably her.

Give a man an object that can be used as a weapon, he's likely to use it as a weapon if needed.

I've seen a guy beaten to death with a lamp before. Just goes to show, people will fark ecah other up, no matter what they have at hand.
 
2014-01-14 05:14:00 PM

Tigger: Weatherkiss:

There is. You have to get a permit to open carry, you have to get a permit to conceal carry. To do that, you have to go through the legal methods of doing so which vary from state to state. Some states are stringent on how they give out permits. Some states are not so stringent.

Excellent.

So why not make everyone that wants a gun take and pass that training?

Like the military does?


I'm okay with that
 
2014-01-14 05:14:28 PM

Corvus: So people should be carrying guns all the time in public. Sorry I thought earlier you said they didn't.


Nope, People who feel the need to carry a firearm should be allowed to. Nothing in my statement made any suggestion that it was a requirement. You are free to do as you wish
 
2014-01-14 05:15:05 PM

Farker Soze: Corvus: Farker Soze: Corvus: Farker Soze: Corvus: So you are for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal gun owner is this responsible?

Hah.  Close enough.

Huh?

So holding people to their own words about Responsible gun ownership is "banning all guns".

Yu think not letting crazy people have guns and background checks is 100% the same as "banning all guns".

Wow you are brainwashed by the NRA.

Ok, you don't want to take them all, just want to make it a privilege instead of a right, right?  I get it.  Still don't understand why you guys always throw around the drink driving comparison so much yet not one of you ever seems to be for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal drinker is responsible enough not to drink and drive.

HE BROUGHT UP DRUNK DRIVING NOT ME.

GO ASK HIM.

Well, are you for background checks on booze?  If not, why do you hate children?


Nope.


He said since gun crimes would still happen if gun laws were passed. I explained to him drunk driving still happens after their are drunk driving laws and if he thought those should be repealed too?

Ok let me put it this way "Rape still happens even though we have laws against rape, do you think then we should get rid of those laws?"

Does that make it better for you?
 
2014-01-14 05:15:36 PM

Corvus: Mikey1969: Kit Fister: Corvus: Kit Fister: Corvus: Well except other people can shoot you with their gun and kill you. So that part is not your own choice now is it?

Considering that can happen just about anywhere, even the UK  (albeit much less likely), then I don't see how that's ever a reasonably sound thought.

You still have a greater chance, in the US, of dying due to a drunk driver, drowning in a pool, or having a heart attack than you do getting shot. But yes, do continue to fear the unlikely.

So then we should make drunk driving legal right because it still happens even though its illegal?

Uhm, you do realize that, like drunk driving, using a firearm to assault someone without a very very good reason (self defense) is already illegal, right? And that the use of a firearm in the commission of any other crime is a huge pile-on charge, right?

Drinking booze is legal. Drinking booze and then driving is illegal. Owning/carrying a gun is legal. Using a gun in a reckless or criminal manner is illegal.

Or are you somehow suggesting that mere ownership or carrying of a firearm at all is tantamount to the criminally negligent use of booze?

Yes he is... But he's not "afraid" of guns, of course...

You might want to look back. It was his analogy, not mine.

I am afraid of guns. Now why are gun owners so afraid to be out in public without a gun?


Most aren't... It looks like roughly a third of all Americans own guns. Do you really see 1 out of EVERY three people you encounter throughout the day carrying?
 
2014-01-14 05:16:39 PM

Kit Fister: Corvus: So people should be carrying guns all the time in public. Sorry I thought earlier you said they didn't.

Nope, People who feel the need to carry a firearm should be allowed to. Nothing in my statement made any suggestion that it was a requirement. You are free to do as you wish


I am not talking about "feeling". Are you saying you just "Feel" like you need to carry a gun but realy don't have to?

You keep switching it. You weren't saying "feeling" before and then when I ask you to be specific you switch it to "feeling".
 
2014-01-14 05:17:06 PM

Corvus: Farker Soze: Corvus: Farker Soze: Corvus: So you are for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal gun owner is this responsible?

Hah.  Close enough.

Huh?

So holding people to their own words about Responsible gun ownership is "banning all guns".

Yu think not letting crazy people have guns and background checks is 100% the same as "banning all guns".

Wow you are brainwashed by the NRA.

Ok, you don't want to take them all, just want to make it a privilege instead of a right, right?  I get it.  Still don't understand why you guys always throw around the drink driving comparison so much yet not one of you ever seems to be for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal drinker is responsible enough not to drink and drive.

Kit Fister: Corvus: Well except other people can shoot you with their gun and kill you. So that part is not your own choice now is it?

Considering that can happen just about anywhere, even the UK  (albeit much less likely), then I don't see how that's ever a reasonably sound thought.

You still have a greater chance, in the US, of dying due to a drunk driver, drowning in a pool, or having a heart attack than you do getting shot. But yes, do continue to fear the unlikely.


Right "I" brought it up.


*I* brought up drunk driving, for the specific reason I stated earlier:

Drunk Driving is an example of the criminally negligent use of booze/a car. You are using both items in a manner which present a danger to the public.

The firearms equivalent of this is taking the gun out and waving it around and firing it in public. You are using the firearm, and your right ot carry a firearm, in a criminally negligent manner.

Based on those strict conditionals, I was pointing out that it's more likely that you will be harmed by the misuse of booze/a car than you are by the misuse of a firearm.
 
2014-01-14 05:17:59 PM

Kit Fister: Corvus: So people should be carrying guns all the time in public. Sorry I thought earlier you said they didn't.

Nope, People who feel the need to carry a firearm should be allowed to. Nothing in my statement made any suggestion that it was a requirement. You are free to do as you wish


Am I free to not live in a country where I have to worry that some nut will shoot me in the head because I am texting?

"Freedom" doesn't just work in some magical bubble that doesn't affect others like you pretend it does.
 
2014-01-14 05:19:20 PM

Kit Fister: Corvus: Farker Soze: Corvus: Farker Soze: Corvus: So you are for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal gun owner is this responsible?

Hah.  Close enough.

Huh?

So holding people to their own words about Responsible gun ownership is "banning all guns".

Yu think not letting crazy people have guns and background checks is 100% the same as "banning all guns".

Wow you are brainwashed by the NRA.

Ok, you don't want to take them all, just want to make it a privilege instead of a right, right?  I get it.  Still don't understand why you guys always throw around the drink driving comparison so much yet not one of you ever seems to be for very strict background checks so that we can make sure every legal drinker is responsible enough not to drink and drive.

Kit Fister: Corvus: Well except other people can shoot you with their gun and kill you. So that part is not your own choice now is it?

Considering that can happen just about anywhere, even the UK  (albeit much less likely), then I don't see how that's ever a reasonably sound thought.

You still have a greater chance, in the US, of dying due to a drunk driver, drowning in a pool, or having a heart attack than you do getting shot. But yes, do continue to fear the unlikely.


Right "I" brought it up.

*I* brought up drunk driving, for the specific reason I stated earlier:

Drunk Driving is an example of the criminally negligent use of booze/a car. You are using both items in a manner which present a danger to the public.

The firearms equivalent of this is taking the gun out and waving it around and firing it in public. You are using the firearm, and your right ot carry a firearm, in a criminally negligent manner.

Based on those strict conditionals, I was pointing out that it's more likely that you will be harmed by the misuse of booze/a car than you are by the misuse of a firearm.


Right but your original  point was even if we had gun laws we will still have gun crime.

Well we have laws against rape should those be removed because rape still exists?

Or is that logic you were using faulty?
 
2014-01-14 05:19:23 PM

Weatherkiss: There's a certain respect or fear for pistols. If you want to give someone an attitude adjustment, you openly carry. If you take the same human being and put them in front of someone who wants something from them, if that human being has a gunbelt and a holstered pistol -- more often than not the way you deal with that person will be extremely different.

And I think there are a lot of people in everyday life that needs to have an attitude adjustment.


Dude, you spend a lot of time concerned with the attitudes of complete strangers.
 
2014-01-14 05:19:35 PM

Weatherkiss: Tigger: Weatherkiss:

There is. You have to get a permit to open carry, you have to get a permit to conceal carry. To do that, you have to go through the legal methods of doing so which vary from state to state. Some states are stringent on how they give out permits. Some states are not so stringent.

Excellent.

So why not make everyone that wants a gun take and pass that training?

Like the military does?

I'm okay with that


Apologies for the repetition of a previous post; however what this implies is we have a serious problem here.

If a bunch of gun owners can agree on something as simple as "you should have to get training to wield something dangerous" then we have a giant problem with the fact that we can't even get a vote on anything approaching that level of stringency in Congress. Wayne LaPierre even reversed his OWN position on universal background checks.
 
2014-01-14 05:20:51 PM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Mikey1969: Staff also were taught how to react when someone open-carries into a building because "it's something that's coming out more and more," Bagladi said.

You know how I react? I don't. I go on about my business. It's amazing how farking easy it is, no training is needed.

I dunno.  I see someone strapping in an area where they're not likely a hunter or something, more likely either a douchebag or some psycho?  I don't go there.  I leave.  Usually these subsets look exactly the same and I'm not about to cut my life short betting on the douchebag.

Businesses must love this shiat.


I've stood next to people with guns on their hips and never once gotten shot. It's amazing, I must have lead-repelling properties or something. I even carry my pistol on my hip on occasion, when heading to the gun range, and nobody has ever gotten shot by my gun, nor have they opened fire upon me. Funny part is that the businesses I've been in haven't had an issue either. People come in, they buy their soda, pay for their gas, buy their groceries, get a donut, a cup of coffee, etc., and nothing happens except that they get out their wallet, pay, and head back out the door.

I know, it's weird. the way everyone's talking here, you'd expect them to be pulling a Homer, and using the gun to punch the buttons on the card reader when it comes time to enter their PIN, but that's not what happens. Even weirder: Some people have survived being in a business with a gun present more than once.
 
2014-01-14 05:21:51 PM

Weatherkiss: However, openly carrying means you are alerting everybody around you that you do have a gun, but that it is holstered securely on your belt. People might get concerned. But you are displaying to your other human beings that you have nothing to hide.


Open carry is an open threat that if you have the temerity to not respect mah authoritay, I'll blow your farking head off.
 
2014-01-14 05:21:57 PM

Kit Fister: Corvus: So what does that prove about gun laws again? Please explain it to us.

It proves that bad shiat can happen to good people, so laws enabling good people to arm themselves and level the playing field against those who do bad things are beneficial.


Hmm I don't see you saying here "People FEEL that bad shiat can happen.."

When you are talking about yourself you make it sound like a fact you "good people" need guns but when I ask you if that means all "good people" need guns you switch to it depends on how they "feel",
 
2014-01-14 05:23:49 PM

quizzical: Dude, you spend a lot of time concerned with the attitudes of complete strangers.


He just wants people to know that he can adjust their non-compliant attitude with a bullet to the head. That means blah people not getting uppity, women knowing their place and children not speaking up.
 
2014-01-14 05:24:08 PM

Corvus: I am not talking about "feeling". Are you saying you just "Feel" like you need to carry a gun but realy don't have to?

You keep switching it. You weren't saying "feeling" before and then when I ask you to be specific you switch it to "feeling".


I have never switched on this. Never. I have said alternately that gun owners carry because it's a tool they might need, or they feel they might need, or that they absolutely might need.

I have also said repeatedly that if you don't believe you need one, or don't want one, don't carry one.

Personally, I carry a firearm for the same reason I carry a pocket knife or a multitool: I may have a need for it at some point, and I'd rather have it than not. Does that mean that I will absolutely need it every time I go out? God I hope not.

However, given my past experience where bad shiat happened to me after repeatedly being told it doesn't happen/isn't likely to, I'm going to plan for the worst case scenario. This is the same reason I keep a first aid kit and a set of tools in my truck, and always keep a spare tire in good condition.

I don't think I can be any more clear than that. If you want to keep twisting my words to make some kind of point, go for it, but I think I've stated quite clearly and directly my point:

I carry a gun because I want to, because I think I might need it, and because history has taught me that the worst case scenario can happen. I don't like being unprepared, so I make that personal choice to carry.
 
2014-01-14 05:24:09 PM

ikanreed: Mikey1969: ikanreed: Mikey1969: Staff also were taught how to react when someone open-carries into a building because "it's something that's coming out more and more," Bagladi said.

You know how I react? I don't. I go on about my business. It's amazing how farking easy it is, no training is needed.

Until a lump of copper is lodged in your parietal lobe.  Then you can't react.  It's the perfect solution.

How weird... 44 years, all of them in states where carrying is permitted, and the last 20 or so years where concealed carry is permitted. Not once have I seen a person draw their weapon, and not once I have I known anyone else to have been around where someone drew their weapon. I'm sure you see it daily though, right? Any day you get home having dodged a bullet is one less trip to the ER.

Come on man, it was a joke.  The relevant points are all quite clearly encoded in ownership vs violent death rates, controlling for other variables.  I know that there's less than a 1% chance of any given person dying of a gunshot wound.


Fine, but you gotta put something in to tag it as a joke in a hot thread like this. There is no such thing as subtext when it's all text based, there's a reason people invented emoticons...
 
Displayed 50 of 509 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report