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.

(Politico)   Left-wing idol-of-the-month Wendy Davis supports Texas open-carry gun law, becomes right-wing idol-of-the-month   (politico.com) divider line 542
    More: Interesting, Texas Opens, Texas, gun laws, Republican George W. Bush, Texas Democratic Party, right-wing, concealed handgun, Texas Attorney General  
•       •       •

1442 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2014 at 8:51 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-06 02:08:01 PM

sugar_fetus: Triaxis: I support the second amendment rights of gays and lesbians to carry firearms for home defense or to defend their marijuana at their weddings.  There. are they any political groups i didn't piss off?

Your newsletter, I wish to subscribe!


Hey! two more socialists!
 
2014-02-06 02:08:44 PM

HeadLever: Ok, Fair enough.To each their own.  I definable can see where it is not for everyone, but I love to hunt and I love to shoot.  For me, being able to hit an egg at 150 yards every time with ammunition you have loaded yourself is really satisfying.  Though, the biggest pain right now is all the damn hysteria and hoarders out there is making it very difficult to find reloading components even today.


I actually don't mind going to the range and am a fairly good shot, and will admit that firing weapons is amusing, they are fun toys at times...  I just think the social costs are high.

But the cats out of the bag both legally, socially, and practically so it ain't going to change.

For what its worth I think the whole obsesion over assault weapons is silly, as they are irrelevant in most gun crimes.
 
2014-02-06 02:08:50 PM

Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Doom MD: dr_blasto: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.

It's almost as if adults need to make responsible decisions. You're not going to see shootouts in Times Square, save that for the nypd to do (which they have). So if that's his concern, is he ok with NYC residents carrying bladed weapons in any manner they choose including packing a claymore?

I've always been somewhat bemused by the laws that prohibit knives. Sure, if some weirdo wants to wander around with a claymore, let them. If I stand a couple yards away, he's no threat to me and I probably wouldn't have to listen to his crazy mutterings about demons or whatever, and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazy as fark.

I for one think it's perfectly sane for me to walk around with this

[img.fark.net image 504x435]


Strapped to your chest?
 
2014-02-06 02:08:54 PM

HeadLever: At least you could have linked to a picture of a rock. At least your weapon range would be 15 to 20 feet instead of 6. Neither one is going to be as useful as a firearm for self defense, though.


Considering the topic was the unintended consequences of acting in self-defense in a densely populated area like New York, that's not too bad.  6 feet might be the length of your entire apartment.
 
2014-02-06 02:09:11 PM

lilplatinum: Frank N Stein: A power sander, sure. It's mundane. But how about a computer? That's just a tool as well, when you get down to it. But computers represent more than just a computing machine.

I would probably find passion about a computer itself a bit weird as well, but not as creepy as computers were not fundamentally made to kill other people (instead they were made to display pornography).


I think we are thinking of slightly different meanings of "passion" which have almost entirely different connotations. I'm thinking more in the terms of an enjoyable hobby that one takes care to be well versed in.
 
2014-02-06 02:09:18 PM

sugar_fetus: Dr Dreidel: sugar_fetus: If owning a firearm did increase my chance of dying, you can bet that the insurance agents would be using that to increase my premiums. They have this thing down to a science.

Why don't we require liability insurance for gun ownership like we do for cars? With so many firearm deaths every year, making that case that there is a "compelling government interest" in mandating liability insurance wouldn't be hard. (Congress has thought about it, too.)

The NRA offers liability insurance, just BTW - $254 gets you $250k in coverage.

Automobile insurance requirements are not driven by the number of deaths caused by automobiles, but by the amount of property damage accidents cause. 

Also, liability insurance usually doesn't cover you if the liability is the result of an unlawful action. Most firearm deaths in the US are a result of criminal activity, and would not be covered.

Accidental deaths are covered by insurance. When I got my first CHL, the state I was living in required that I also have a liability policy. It cost me all of 12 dollars a year, IIRC. They dropped that requirement a couple of years later due to the very, very small numbers of CHL holders who ever found themselves in such a situation.

The state I reside in now does not require it, but I still have the rider, because it costs little and it might save me a whole bunch if I ever have to use my firearm in a defensive manner.

In other words, accidental damage by firearms is negligible, while willful damage is covered by the criminal laws already established.


I notice you missed "damage to property", which guns can cause (like Jesse/Walt's RV door).

In order to make a new gun law, Congress would have to show that such a law served a "compelling government interest", else it would likely be a violation of Amdt 2 (compare to the government slapping a $9 million excise on gun sales - that would be unConstitutional as it serves no compelling interest). The way you show that interest is by pointing the number of deaths. We have to treat it differently from cars because of arms' special place in law (we don't need much of a legal reason or basis for new car laws).

// the bolded part is the idea behind insurance, chief
// for lulz, I can make a bunch of suggestions to gun insurance that mirror provisions of the ACA - like the 80/20 (or 85/15) rule
 
2014-02-06 02:09:19 PM

Doom MD: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

As a lifelong New Yorker, you wouldn't really know what freedoms people living outside the city have, by your logic.

I lived in NYC for several years. There's a reason I'm not. I definitely feel like I have more freedoms outside the city than in. Enjoy your gun bans/confiscations, e-cig bans, soda bans and all that other fun nonsense your city pushes for.


I've been informed that you can still buy soda, so NYC is still a bastion of freedom.
 
2014-02-06 02:09:44 PM

Saiga410: I was  thinking cars.  Sure it gets you from point a to b but dont this look nice once I change the paint, change the suspension and wheel/tires.


I will never understand car fanaticism either... then again I hate those farking things too, which is why when moving back to America I moved to a place where one is unecessary.
 
2014-02-06 02:09:47 PM

Soup4Bonnie: I did not understand why there was a West 3rd St, West 4th St and then a couple of blocks later East 9th, but somehow we managed to find our restaurant with the help of a nice taxi driver.


Nobody here understands that either! Glad you had fun here and that you got a nice cabbie - it can be hit or miss with them.
 
2014-02-06 02:10:06 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Doom MD: dr_blasto: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.

It's almost as if adults need to make responsible decisions. You're not going to see shootouts in Times Square, save that for the nypd to do (which they have). So if that's his concern, is he ok with NYC residents carrying bladed weapons in any manner they choose including packing a claymore?

I've always been somewhat bemused by the laws that prohibit knives. Sure, if some weirdo wants to wander around with a claymore, let them. If I stand a couple yards away, he's no threat to me and I probably wouldn't have to listen to his crazy mutterings about demons or whatever, and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazy as fark.

I for one think it's perfectly sane for me to walk around with this

[img.fark.net image 504x435]

Strapped to your chest?


Yes. But the front faces towards the enemy. So if anyone tries to mug me he'll get his.
 
2014-02-06 02:10:46 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: words words words


The plural of "anecdotes" is not "data."

First off, we seem to have nebulous arguments.  Open carry vs. Concealed carry tends to be the setup, since I presume (?) you are not behind complete banning of guns in public places (such a ban would mean a ban of guns in general, really, how else would those gun move from store to home to shooting range?   If we assume that, then "increased risk" can discount accidents because, like it or not, a concealed firearm is as likely to result in an accident as an open firearm.

Moving forward,  demaL-demaL-yeH's citations just refer to criminal activity with guns.  Open carry vs. concealed carry don't change the relevant portions of that story unless carrying a gun openly somehow increases the likelihood of it being used.  To prove that you would need the weapons effect and (since we're now in the realm of the fuzzy soft science of psychology) you also need evidence and citations suggesting that the weapons effect is greater than the deterrent effect of knowing members of the populace are armed as well as a successful argument that the right to the self-defense capacity of a gun is lower priority than the number of lives that might be saved (and you need a number that has some semblance of vetting) by not allowing open carry.

But it doesn't stop there!

Statistically speaking all crimes committed with guns (the legal guns are equivalent to a farking rounding error) which were already illegal. The man with a gun to his name is not going to use it for a stop'n'rob or a shoot-out, the gun is in his name and too traceable.  How do these guns get into the black market?  Well that's a fair question, but you need the answer and how it relates to legislation for it to back up such legislation.

But I believe this thread was about concern-trolling from the NRA-crowd explaining that the democrats need to divide and conquer themselves instead of standing united against the GOP and its freedom-hating, aristocrat-blowing ways.
 
2014-02-06 02:14:20 PM

dr_blasto:  and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazyAWESOME as fark.


ftfy

/BLOOD FOR ODIN!
 
2014-02-06 02:14:49 PM

cousin-merle: Considering the topic was the unintended consequences of acting in self-defense in a densely populated area like New York, that's not too bad.  6 feet might be the length of your entire apartment.


Ha.  Nice.
 
2014-02-06 02:15:26 PM

Frank N Stein: demaL-demaL-yeH: Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Doom MD: dr_blasto: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.

It's almost as if adults need to make responsible decisions. You're not going to see shootouts in Times Square, save that for the nypd to do (which they have). So if that's his concern, is he ok with NYC residents carrying bladed weapons in any manner they choose including packing a claymore?

I've always been somewhat bemused by the laws that prohibit knives. Sure, if some weirdo wants to wander around with a claymore, let them. If I stand a couple yards away, he's no threat to me and I probably wouldn't have to listen to his crazy mutterings about demons or whatever, and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazy as fark.

I for one think it's perfectly sane for me to walk around with this

[img.fark.net image 504x435]

Strapped to your chest?

Yes. But the front faces towards the enemy. So if anyone tries to mug me he'll get his.


Not too into claymores. Competent with them, but I'm more of a saber man, myself. They're super.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-06 02:15:34 PM

TheBigJerk: dr_blasto:  and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazyAWESOME as fark.

ftfy

/BLOOD FOR ODIN!


barbarian. Get a gladius like a true patrician.
 
2014-02-06 02:15:40 PM

Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Frank N Stein: A power sander, sure. It's mundane. But how about a computer? That's just a tool as well, when you get down to it. But computers represent more than just a computing machine.

I would probably find passion about a computer itself a bit weird as well, but not as creepy as computers were not fundamentally made to kill other people (instead they were made to display pornography).

I think we are thinking of slightly different meanings of "passion" which have almost entirely different connotations. I'm thinking more in the terms of an enjoyable hobby that one takes care to be well versed in.


I know lots of people for whom this is the most important issue on the political spectrum.   Thats what I find fundamentally mindboggling.  I grant you that it sucks when the government goes against something you like to do.  Hell, I like to smoke grass and the governments stupid laws are annoying.  (Less so living in a city where it can be delivered as easy as seamless).  Legalization still isn't in my top 10 list of political concerns.
 
2014-02-06 02:17:20 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: joness0154: The police are the ones shooting bystanders, not CCW permit holders or individuals open carrying.  Why are people in here claiming otherwise?  There's no facts to back up statements in here that these individuals are dangerous to the public.

Ya.
Sure ting.  - No guns went off and the article doesn't state whether he had a valid carry permit.
You betchya.
Fer shure.  - No verification on whether this lady had a valid carry permit.
Yessiree Bob.-  This guy was breaking the law (under the influence) while carrying.
Uh-huh. -  The article states this woman did NOT have a permit to carry a concealed firearm.
Yup. -  Cop, not a civilian, carrying a firearm under LEOSA
Right.
Proceed.
Walking around armed in public does not increase the danger to yourself and the public. In a pig's eye.

NB: Licensed concealed carriers for every single one of those, um   isolated incidents  up there in the last few months.


Every single one, eh?  Try again.  Even so, a minuscule number of incidents somehow makes all CCWers and open carriers a menace to the public?
 
2014-02-06 02:18:12 PM

Doom MD: CCW holders have had vastly superior accuracy in violent confrontations than police officers (possibly attributable to the fact ccw holders are generally avid shooters whereas police officers just have to qualify to retain their jobs and their duty pistols have extremely heavy triggers). Readily available training is great, the problem is mandating it has been used as a means to make obtaining a ccw difficult. OTOH, NY state forbids you to hold a firearm during CCW training so you can't even legally shoot it at a target.


Thanks for supporting my point. If you are going to walk around armed, you had better be proficient at hitting your target. CCW holders might not be the problem regarding stray rounds, but with the rise of "Constitutional Carry" and states that don't have mandatory training for weapons carry there are a lot of numbskulls out there who pack but can't shoot worth a damn. If mandating training makes it more difficult for these geniuses to get a carry license, I can't see how that is a bad thing. Mandatory training also tends to weed out the unstable ones as well.

/I know all about cops who can't shoot well. Seen several of them in my IPSC career, they tend to either get much better, or they don't last long in the sport (they also tend to think they're hot shiat until their first match)
//Father is RCMP with Superior Marksman Distinction Handgun and Longarm, and you should hear him biatch about proficiencies in the force
///Guess where I learned to shoot
 
2014-02-06 02:19:08 PM

TheBigJerk: The man with a gun to his name is not going to use it for a stop'n'rob or a shoot-out, the gun is in his name and too traceable.  How do these guns get into the black market?  Well that's a fair question, but you need the answer and how it relates to legislation for it to back up such legislation.


I think this is a different issue, but fundamentally so long as any gun isn't stolen, it can be sold face-to-face to anyone, legally, which means there's no real traceability or classic black market, with some weapons platforms excepted.
 
2014-02-06 02:21:53 PM

TheBigJerk: demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: words words words

The plural of "anecdotes" is not "data."

First off, we seem to have nebulous arguments.  Open carry vs. Concealed carry tends to be the setup, since I presume (?) you are not behind complete banning of guns in public places (such a ban would mean a ban of guns in general, really, how else would those gun move from store to home to shooting range?   If we assume that, then "increased risk" can discount accidents because, like it or not, a concealed firearm is as likely to result in an accident as an open firearm.

Moving forward,  demaL-demaL-yeH's citations just refer to criminal activity with guns.  Open carry vs. concealed carry don't change the relevant portions of that story unless carrying a gun openly somehow increases the likelihood of it being used.  To prove that you would need the weapons effect and (since we're now in the realm of the fuzzy soft science of psychology) you also need evidence and citations suggesting that the weapons effect is greater than the deterrent effect of knowing members of the populace are armed as well as a successful argument that the right to the self-defense capacity of a gun is lower priority than the number of lives that might be saved (and you need a number that has some semblance of vetting) by not allowing open carry.

But it doesn't stop there!

Statistically speaking all crimes committed with guns (the legal guns are equivalent to a farking rounding error) which were already illegal. The man with a gun to his name is not going to use it for a stop'n'rob or a shoot-out, the gun is in his name and too traceable.  How do these guns get into the black market?  Well that's a fair question, but you need the answer and how it relates to legislation for it to back up such legislation.

But I believe this thread was about concern-trolling from the NRA-crowd explaining that the democrats need to divide and conquer themselves instead of standing united aga ...


Criminal or stupid activities by concealed carry license holders, including a Chief of Police.
I'm not against owning firearms.
I'm not against carrying one when there is good reason.
I am vehemently against fearful, untrained, undertrained, incompetent people walking around armed in public.

I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.
 
2014-02-06 02:24:56 PM

Mouldy Squid: Doom MD: CCW holders have had vastly superior accuracy in violent confrontations than police officers (possibly attributable to the fact ccw holders are generally avid shooters whereas police officers just have to qualify to retain their jobs and their duty pistols have extremely heavy triggers). Readily available training is great, the problem is mandating it has been used as a means to make obtaining a ccw difficult. OTOH, NY state forbids you to hold a firearm during CCW training so you can't even legally shoot it at a target.

Thanks for supporting my point. If you are going to walk around armed, you had better be proficient at hitting your target. CCW holders might not be the problem regarding stray rounds, but with the rise of "Constitutional Carry" and states that don't have mandatory training for weapons carry there are a lot of numbskulls out there who pack but can't shoot worth a damn. If mandating training makes it more difficult for these geniuses to get a carry license, I can't see how that is a bad thing. Mandatory training also tends to weed out the unstable ones as well.

/I know all about cops who can't shoot well. Seen several of them in my IPSC career, they tend to either get much better, or they don't last long in the sport (they also tend to think they're hot shiat until their first match)
//Father is RCMP with Superior Marksman Distinction Handgun and Longarm, and you should hear him biatch about proficiencies in the force
///Guess where I learned to shoot


I live in a constitutional carry state. As far as I can tell, there has been zero change in the number of weapon discharges - justified or not - since the law became active. I'll admit, though, we have some of the lowest population density of the entire continent.

I'm pretty certain, though, there was a pretty big jump in the number of people who began carrying, but that number has tapered off over time. It was more a novelty for some, probably too much of a pain in the ass as you still can't carry wherever federal laws prohibit it nor can you carry in bars, churches or any government office buildings. Most employers prohibit weapons as well, as do most malls and the like.
 
2014-02-06 02:25:07 PM

Mouldy Squid: If mandating training makes it more difficult for these geniuses to get a carry license, I can't see how that is a bad thing. Mandatory training also tends to weed out the unstable ones as well.


The problem is that mandating any requirement in order to exercise an enumerated right is pretty much frowned upon.  It could be argued that these mandatory licenses could be manipulated in order to deny the standard citizen's right to bear arms.
 
2014-02-06 02:27:47 PM

HeadLever: enumerated right


it is always funny when someone parades this phrase around

it is like a giant neon arrow that says "hey this guy doesnt know what the fark theyre talking about"
 
2014-02-06 02:27:50 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: TheBigJerk: demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: words words words

The plural of "anecdotes" is not "data."

First off, we seem to have nebulous arguments.  Open carry vs. Concealed carry tends to be the setup, since I presume (?) you are not behind complete banning of guns in public places (such a ban would mean a ban of guns in general, really, how else would those gun move from store to home to shooting range?   If we assume that, then "increased risk" can discount accidents because, like it or not, a concealed firearm is as likely to result in an accident as an open firearm.

Moving forward,  demaL-demaL-yeH's citations just refer to criminal activity with guns.  Open carry vs. concealed carry don't change the relevant portions of that story unless carrying a gun openly somehow increases the likelihood of it being used.  To prove that you would need the weapons effect and (since we're now in the realm of the fuzzy soft science of psychology) you also need evidence and citations suggesting that the weapons effect is greater than the deterrent effect of knowing members of the populace are armed as well as a successful argument that the right to the self-defense capacity of a gun is lower priority than the number of lives that might be saved (and you need a number that has some semblance of vetting) by not allowing open carry.

But it doesn't stop there!

Statistically speaking all crimes committed with guns (the legal guns are equivalent to a farking rounding error) which were already illegal. The man with a gun to his name is not going to use it for a stop'n'rob or a shoot-out, the gun is in his name and too traceable.  How do these guns get into the black market?  Well that's a fair question, but you need the answer and how it relates to legislation for it to back up such legislation.

But I believe this thread was about concern-trolling from the NRA-crowd explaining that the democrats need to divide and conquer themselves instead of standing ...


I didn't open any of those links, but did they have the chief of police from wyoming that tased his officer, a guy in his house and himself all "accidentally" while trying to serve some summons or respond to a complaint about the guy's cats?

Because that was funny shiat and should be forwarded everywhere.
 
2014-02-06 02:28:39 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: I am vehemently against fearful, untrained, undertrained, incompetent people walking around armed in public.


Let me guess, only you can determine who is not fearful, untrained, undertrained, or incompetent, amiright?  Is that requirement instituted before or after you get to choose whose reasons are justified in order to carry in public?
 
2014-02-06 02:32:22 PM
*sigh* Whatever...

/Not a fan of it, but the world isn't going to end if open-carry even became law, so oh, well.
 
2014-02-06 02:33:32 PM

sprawl15: it is always funny when someone parades this phrase around

it is like a giant neon arrow that says "hey this guy doesnt know what the fark theyre talking about"


Please explain.  An enumerated right has a specific definition.  I didn't think it was that hard to understand.
 
2014-02-06 02:34:11 PM

Bloody William: sendtodave: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

They tried to ban soda.

False, and I'm pretty sure I've corrected you about this in the past.


You can't fix satire.

NY is a joke.  Want to see real cities?  Try Asia.
 
2014-02-06 02:37:01 PM

HeadLever: An enumerated right has a specific definition.


and why do you think a right being enumerated matters?

put another way, why bother appending 'enumerated' to the word 'right'?
 
2014-02-06 02:37:35 PM
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneillinstitute/gostin_hcr_bloombergsh e althlegacy.cfm

 "Bloomberg's Health Legacy: Urban Innovator or Meddling Nanny"

"Paternalistic" seems to come up a lot.
 
2014-02-06 02:38:53 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Criminal or stupid activities by concealed carry license holders, including a Chief of Police.
I'm not against owning firearms.
I'm not against carrying one when there is good reason.
I am vehemently against fearful, untrained, undertrained, incompetent people walking around armed in public.

I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.


Half the people in the articles you posted didn't have valid carry permits (including the cop, who actually is legally able to carry under LEOSA).

Regardless, what's a "good reason" to be carrying?  Is not wanting to protect oneself a good enough reason?
 
2014-02-06 02:40:14 PM

sendtodave: Bloody William: sendtodave: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

They tried to ban soda.

False, and I'm pretty sure I've corrected you about this in the past.

You can't fix satire.

NY is a joke.  Want to see real cities?  Try Asia.


That's a continent.
 
2014-02-06 02:42:24 PM

Bloody William: sendtodave: Bloody William: sendtodave: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

They tried to ban soda.

False, and I'm pretty sure I've corrected you about this in the past.

You can't fix satire.

NY is a joke.  Want to see real cities?  Try Asia.

That's a continent.


Where as NYC is incontinent.  Heyo!
 
2014-02-06 02:44:18 PM

sendtodave: NY is a joke.  Want to see real cities?  Try Asia.


Lived in Shanghai, doesn't make NY a joke.  It might have more people, but we don't have rotting pig corpses flowing down the hudson.

/although we do have people from New Jersey and Staten Island, so maybe it is a wash.
 
2014-02-06 02:46:23 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.


So, basically, you want me to pay for you to get classes in your study hobby?

Go fark yourself.
 
2014-02-06 02:48:50 PM

dr_blasto: Mouldy Squid: Doom MD: CCW holders have had vastly superior accuracy in violent confrontations than police officers (possibly attributable to the fact ccw holders are generally avid shooters whereas police officers just have to qualify to retain their jobs and their duty pistols have extremely heavy triggers). Readily available training is great, the problem is mandating it has been used as a means to make obtaining a ccw difficult. OTOH, NY state forbids you to hold a firearm during CCW training so you can't even legally shoot it at a target.

Thanks for supporting my point. If you are going to walk around armed, you had better be proficient at hitting your target. CCW holders might not be the problem regarding stray rounds, but with the rise of "Constitutional Carry" and states that don't have mandatory training for weapons carry there are a lot of numbskulls out there who pack but can't shoot worth a damn. If mandating training makes it more difficult for these geniuses to get a carry license, I can't see how that is a bad thing. Mandatory training also tends to weed out the unstable ones as well.

/I know all about cops who can't shoot well. Seen several of them in my IPSC career, they tend to either get much better, or they don't last long in the sport (they also tend to think they're hot shiat until their first match)
//Father is RCMP with Superior Marksman Distinction Handgun and Longarm, and you should hear him biatch about proficiencies in the force
///Guess where I learned to shoot

I live in a constitutional carry state. As far as I can tell, there has been zero change in the number of weapon discharges - justified or not - since the law became active. I'll admit, though, we have some of the lowest population density of the entire continent.

I'm pretty certain, though, there was a pretty big jump in the number of people who began carrying, but that number has tapered off over time. It was more a novelty for some, probably too much of a pain in the ass as ...


I take it that you live in a mostly rural state? In my experience, mainly rural populations tend to have been raised in shooting culture and are more responsible with their firearms. I don't have a problem with them. I have a problem with dickwads and mental cases packing. If they want to carry then they should have the training. If that comes at the price of making it marginally more difficult for responsible owners (who shouldn't have any trouble passing the proficiencies), I would call that fair.

I, obviously, don't have a problem with the responsible gun owners. The problem is that any attempt at weeding out the irresponsible ones requires some kind of regulation, and that is antithetical to the rabid gun nuts.
 
2014-02-06 02:49:05 PM

sendtodave: Bloody William: sendtodave: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

They tried to ban soda.

False, and I'm pretty sure I've corrected you about this in the past.

You can't fix satire.

NY is a joke.  Want to see real cities?  Try Asia.


One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble.
 
2014-02-06 02:51:28 PM

BunkoSquad: Here's another lib who's fine with open carry, on the theory that you maybe can't judge a book by its cover, but a candy bar wrapper that says "NUTS" on the outside is a pretty good clue what might be inside


THIS. Nothing like a big steel "I'm a pants sh*tting paranoid idiot" sign displayed prominently in public to let you know who to avoid at all costs.
/has owned guns
//has used guns
///has left his guns IN THE FARKING HOUSE
 
2014-02-06 02:53:43 PM

Fart_Machine: One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble.


omg.  I am going to kill you for that.  Damn it.  There it is.  Stuck in my head.
 
2014-02-06 02:54:20 PM

lilplatinum: sendtodave: NY is a joke. Want to see real cities? Try Asia.

Lived in Shanghai, doesn't make NY a joke. It might have more people, but we don't have rotting pig corpses flowing down the hudson.

/although we do have people from New Jersey and Staten Island, so maybe it is a wash.


I laughed, but in seriousness, it is interesting that a certain type of person feels the need to tell everyone what a "joke" NYC is.

The first time I encountered this phenomenon I must have been about 12. Some kids asks where I'm from, I tell him New York, and he goes into this slightly angry speech about what a lousy place it is and how he doesn't feel any need to go there.

This type feels personally threatened by whatever New York represents to them, and that accounts for the anger. It has nothing to do with what life here is really like.
 
2014-02-06 02:54:34 PM

joness0154: demaL-demaL-yeH: Criminal or stupid activities by concealed carry license holders, including a Chief of Police.
I'm not against owning firearms.
I'm not against carrying one when there is good reason.
I am vehemently against fearful, untrained, undertrained, incompetent people walking around armed in public.

I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.

Half the people in the articles you posted didn't have valid carry permits (including the cop, who actually is legally able to carry under LEOSA).

Regardless, what's a "good reason" to be carrying?  Is not wanting to protect oneself a good enough reason?


From what?
If you can name a specific threat (you're a diamond courier, for example), and you're competent, both with the firearm and mentally, and you're in a place where it's legal for you to carry, no problemo.
If you're just afraid of generic crime, shadows, darker/lighter than you people, loud noises, FoxNews says they're a'-comin-fer-yer-gunz, then no, that's not good reason to walk around armed in public. (Although they are very good reasons to refer you to a mental health professional.)

The streets of this country are safer than they have been since the early 1960s.
 
2014-02-06 02:55:45 PM

Mouldy Squid: I take it that you live in a mostly rural state? In my experience, mainly rural populations tend to have been raised in shooting culture and are more responsible with their firearms. I don't have a problem with them. I have a problem with dickwads and mental cases packing. If they want to carry then they should have the training. If that comes at the price of making it marginally more difficult for responsible owners (who shouldn't have any trouble passing the proficiencies), I would call that fair.

I, obviously, don't have a problem with the responsible gun owners. The problem is that any attempt at weeding out the irresponsible ones requires some kind of regulation, and that is antithetical to the rabid gun nuts.


yeah, Wyoming is pretty close to the least population density you can have and still be a state. I think only Alaska is less dense, but they also have bigger cities.

I'd say that what's good for wide-open Wyoming doesn't necessarily translate to NYC or any other densely populated area. Honestly, the world would be a better place if a lot of gun owners didn't have guns, just like if a lot of people who currently drive ceased to do so. If we, in general, were better at self-appraisal regarding our responsibility or capabilities we'd all be better off.

Unfortunately, a lot of people who carry firearms do so because they can with little to no thought of whether they should.
 
2014-02-06 02:56:13 PM

skozlaw: demaL-demaL-yeH: I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.

So, basically, you want me to pay for you to get classes in your study hobby?

Go fark yourself.


Go get trained and competent before you inflict your armed self on the public.
 
2014-02-06 02:59:16 PM

Wooly Bully: The first time I encountered this phenomenon I must have been about 12. Some kids asks where I'm from, I tell him New York, and he goes into this slightly angry speech about what a lousy place it is and how he doesn't feel any need to go there.

This type feels personally threatened by whatever New York represents to them, and that accounts for the anger. It has nothing to do with what life here is really like.


A good number of my relatives in the south are vehemently against everything NYC stands for, which is odd since several of the more vocal ones have literally never been farther than a couple hundred miles of where they were born.
 
2014-02-06 03:00:03 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Go get trained and competent before you inflict your armed self on the public.


If YOU want to play with YOUR guns YOU go get the training on YOUR dime. I'm neither paying for your cowardice nor will I be mandated to participate in it.
 
2014-02-06 03:00:30 PM

dr_blasto: Mouldy Squid: I take it that you live in a mostly rural state? In my experience, mainly rural populations tend to have been raised in shooting culture and are more responsible with their firearms. I don't have a problem with them. I have a problem with dickwads and mental cases packing. If they want to carry then they should have the training. If that comes at the price of making it marginally more difficult for responsible owners (who shouldn't have any trouble passing the proficiencies), I would call that fair.

I, obviously, don't have a problem with the responsible gun owners. The problem is that any attempt at weeding out the irresponsible ones requires some kind of regulation, and that is antithetical to the rabid gun nuts.

yeah, Wyoming is pretty close to the least population density you can have and still be a state. I think only Alaska is less dense, but they also have bigger cities.

I'd say that what's good for wide-open Wyoming doesn't necessarily translate to NYC or any other densely populated area. Honestly, the world would be a better place if a lot of gun owners didn't have guns, just like if a lot of people who currently drive ceased to do so. If we, in general, were better at self-appraisal regarding our responsibility or capabilities we'd all be better off.

Unfortunately, a lot of people who carry firearms do so because they can with little to no thought of whether they should.


I agree completely.
 
2014-02-06 03:03:22 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: joness0154: demaL-demaL-yeH: Criminal or stupid activities by concealed carry license holders, including a Chief of Police.
I'm not against owning firearms.
I'm not against carrying one when there is good reason.
I am vehemently against fearful, untrained, undertrained, incompetent people walking around armed in public.

I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.

Half the people in the articles you posted didn't have valid carry permits (including the cop, who actually is legally able to carry under LEOSA).

Regardless, what's a "good reason" to be carrying?  Is not wanting to protect oneself a good enough reason?

From what?
If you can name a specific threat (you're a diamond courier, for example), and you're competent, both with the firearm and mentally, and you're in a place where it's legal for you to carry, no problemo.
If you're just afraid of generic crime, shadows, darker/lighter than you people, loud noises, FoxNews says they're a'-comin-fer-yer-gunz, then no, that's not good reason to walk around armed in public. (Although they are very good reasons to refer you to a mental health professional.)

The streets of this country are safer than they have been since the early 1960s.


Ccw has flourished since the 1960s with a drop in crime in that period.

What you propose would be easily abused by anyone with a bone to pick against guns or any group that could conceivably be discriminated against. People are adults and should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding their need to defend themselves rather than the judgement of a bureaucrat who may not even be looking out for their best interest.
 
2014-02-06 03:04:15 PM

Doom MD: Ccw has flourished since the 1960s with a drop in crime in that period.


There was also a gigantic spike in crime inthat period as well...
 
2014-02-06 03:04:46 PM

skozlaw: demaL-demaL-yeH: Go get trained and competent before you inflict your armed self on the public.

If YOU want to play with YOUR guns YOU go get the training on YOUR dime. I'm neither paying for your cowardice nor will I be mandated to participate in it.


Do you take this same view on other mandates such as contraceptives?
 
2014-02-06 03:08:45 PM

Wooly Bully: I laughed, but in seriousness, it is interesting that a certain type of person feels the need to tell everyone what a "joke" NYC is.

The first time I encountered this phenomenon I must have been about 12. Some kids asks where I'm from, I tell him New York, and he goes into this slightly angry speech about what a lousy place it is and how he doesn't feel any need to go there.

This type feels personally threatened by whatever New York represents to them, and that accounts for the anger. It has nothing to do with what life here is really like.


There are two criticisms of NYC I'll countenance:
-it's a city. It's loud, there's lots of people and big buildings, and things "move quickly" - and some people are shocked at all this.
-it's built for small people. A taller and broader person myself, I've found that unless I'm in a newer area, everything is built for people 75% the size they are now (and I don't just mean waistlines). Marshall Eriksen had a great rant about "elf doorways" in NYC on one ep of HIMYM; and I personally agree, especially regarding the narrowness of aisles in stores.

Everything else means you need to get out of Skeeter Holler more.
 
Displayed 50 of 542 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