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.

(Talking Points Memo)   SC Gov "Nikki" Haley: let people carry guns without any training or permits, even in bars? Sure, why not? I mean really, what's the worst that could happen?   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 232
    More: Dumbass, South Carolina, Nikki Haley, business license, Beretta  
•       •       •

1456 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2014 at 12:54 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-12 11:34:53 AM
Ideally, evolution would happen and the idiots will shoot themselves.

Realistically, lots more headlines on Fark from SC regarding innocent people getting shot, possibly prompting it to have its own tag.
 
2014-02-12 11:44:02 AM
So, very similar to the legislation that Arizona has? Because let me tell you, since that law went into effect three years ago it has been nothing but bloodbaths in the streets.

Oh wait, no, the opposite of that.
 
2014-02-12 12:15:22 PM
When I read stories like this, I'm reminded of old Westerns where lawless towns were cleaned up and made safe for citizens to walk down the street without wearing a gun. In retrospect, I now see how very silly that idea was. Thoroughly and utterly unprogressive.
 
2014-02-12 12:54:41 PM

DrBenway: When I read stories like this, I'm reminded of old Westerns where lawless towns were cleaned up and made safe for citizens to walk down the street without wearing a gun. In retrospect, I now see how very silly that idea was. Thoroughly and utterly unprogressive.


The most iconic moment in the lore of "the Old West"  was the shoot-out at the OK Corral.  A shootout that occurred when the local sheriff tried to enforce a city ordinance banning the carrying of guns within town limits.  I wonder why the NRA glosses over that fact when they wax nostalgic about  about those days?  To them Wyatt Earp should be cast as the villain of the piece, trying to deny the Constitutional rights of innocent gun owners, no?
 
2014-02-12 12:55:37 PM

TonnageVT: Ideally, evolution would happen and the idiots will shoot themselves.


technically speaking evolution would only ensure the most capable shots survive which would probably be linked to aggression and psychopathy
 
2014-02-12 12:56:20 PM

TwistedIvory: So, very similar to the legislation that Arizona has? Because let me tell you, since that law went into effect three years ago it has been nothing but bloodbaths in the streets.

Oh wait, no, the opposite of that.


Really? Not a lot of rest home shootings, you say?

I can understand everyone arming themselves, though, what with all those Mexican entering the country illegally just to decapitate people.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2014-02-12 12:56:30 PM
Well this is one way to thin the herd.
 
2014-02-12 12:56:56 PM
In a perfect world, Nikki, nobody would get shot but you.
 
2014-02-12 12:57:40 PM
Well, I see SC is taking its claim as the national capital of "Hold my beer and watch this," seriously.
 
2014-02-12 12:58:27 PM
Having never been, how much in SC is worth saving at this point?
 
2014-02-12 12:59:23 PM
It's hard to take anyone with a name of Nikki seriously, it's a porn name.
 
2014-02-12 12:59:33 PM
I'm fine with firearms in bars, not so fine with the "no required education" bit.
 
2014-02-12 12:59:43 PM
They should also let felons and people in prisons and people with protection orders have guns. It's obvious what the 2nd Amendment says.. no regulations! Crime will disappear if we'd just do this!
 
2014-02-12 01:00:43 PM
I see subby is still running with the "THE STREETS WILL RUN RED WITH BLOOD" hysteria
 
2014-02-12 01:02:37 PM

Summoner101: Having never been, how much in SC is worth saving at this point?


A couple of peach trees and the Colbert family. The rest can go.
 
2014-02-12 01:03:30 PM
OK.  then let's also let people drive without a license or training.  what's the worst that could happen?
 
2014-02-12 01:04:25 PM

Frank N Stein: I see subby is still running with the "THE STREETS WILL RUN RED WITH BLOOD" hysteria


I see you are still running with "let us just arm everyone and see what happens". What a joyous society that would be.
 
2014-02-12 01:06:49 PM
Just a simple progression of removing restrictions until you run into a problem.  We have allowed carry with training and removed some location restrictions without any major problems...  If this causes problems we can assume we have found the floor.  If no problems then we can go even farther.
 
2014-02-12 01:08:07 PM

LessO2: It's hard to take anyone with a name of Nikki seriously, it's a porn name.


Just like "Bobby" Jindal, what kind of grown-ass man still wants to be called "Bobby"?  -One who knows the racists in his own party would never vote for a man named Piyush, that's who.  Same with "Nikki" Haley, Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley  uses on of her middle names because it SOUNDS like an American misspelling of Nicky, and she looks white enough that people assume it is and that way she doesn't have to explain to people that while her father MAY wear a turban, no, he is not an evil moos-lim
 
2014-02-12 01:08:13 PM
www.replikultes.net

Seamus McFly does not support
 
2014-02-12 01:08:17 PM
We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.

But to carry a tool that can easily cause the death of another individual through misuse? Meh.
 
2014-02-12 01:09:43 PM
I carry a 20mm oerlikon because freedom


Suck it libby libturds
 
2014-02-12 01:10:19 PM

Saiga410: Just a simple progression of removing restrictions until you run into a problem.  We have allowed carry with training and removed some location restrictions without any major problems...  If this causes problems we can assume we have found the floor.  If no problems then we can go even farther.


Alaska was awesome in regards to concealed carry. Coming from Illinois to a place with constitutional carry was great. Same with open carry. Though I rarely concealed carry, there were quite a few times where I went for a hike with my bear gun, then stopped at a place to grab a bite to eat or something.
 
2014-02-12 01:11:03 PM

Lord_Baull: We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.


I think the internet would be a whole lot better if we actually did require training before someone was allowed to use a computer.
 
2014-02-12 01:11:51 PM

The Third Man: I think the internet would be a whole lot better if we actually did require training before someone was allowed to use a computer.


At least require a permit to carry CAPS-LOCK
 
2014-02-12 01:12:12 PM

Magorn: LessO2: It's hard to take anyone with a name of Nikki seriously, it's a porn name.

Just like "Bobby" Jindal, what kind of grown-ass man still wants to be called "Bobby"?  -One who knows the racists in his own party would never vote for a man named Piyush, that's who.  Same with "Nikki" Haley, Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley  uses on of her middle names because it SOUNDS like an American misspelling of Nicky, and she looks white enough that people assume it is and that way she doesn't have to explain to people that while her father MAY wear a turban, no, he is not an evil moos-lim


img.fark.net
 
2014-02-12 01:12:15 PM

Lord_Baull: We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.

But to carry a tool that can easily cause the death of another individual through misuse? Meh.


OK but none of that training is required by law.  Proficiency and knowledge of the laws surrounding driving a car maybe but the rest.... nope not seeing your point.
 
2014-02-12 01:12:47 PM
what about ninja stars & nunchaku?
are those legal to carry in SC?

shouldnt' there be a nonlethal alternative for citizens who would rather show off their wicked martial arts talents?
 
2014-02-12 01:12:49 PM

Lord_Baull: We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.

But to carry a tool that can easily cause the death of another individual through misuse? Meh.


But those are not CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!! Or something...
 
2014-02-12 01:15:00 PM
I don't see what the problem is with allowing responsible gun owners to carry weapons anywhere they want. It's a little like Pit Bulls in that, until they do something horrible, they're perfectly fine dogs, and then if something bad happens it's the owners fault, and then that's what the court system is for.
 
2014-02-12 01:15:41 PM

Frank N Stein: I see subby is still running with the "THE STREETS WILL RUN RED WITH BLOOD" hysteria


"What's the worst that could happen?" is quite a bit different from "hysteria."  But hey, go ahead and make sure the observable world fits your narrative.  That's the important thing.
 
2014-02-12 01:15:50 PM
Yep, she is Indian so probably never drinks or sets foot in a bar. Why would she care if the drunks running around shooting each other?
 
2014-02-12 01:15:58 PM
Oh noes!  She's suggested they follow in the lead of that blood soaked hell hole...

VERMONT!
 
2014-02-12 01:17:15 PM

Frank N Stein: I see subby is still running with the "THE STREETS WILL RUN RED WITH BLOOD" hysteria


No subby is going with the "guns kill and injure people in accidents and accidental discharges at a rate FAR higher than the rate they are used in self defense, and alcohol is often a factor in both unintentional and intentional shootings, therefore lowering education requirements for gun handling and increasing the likelihood that they will be carried by someone who has also consumed alcohol, is a BAD thing and poorly thought out public policy"

/subby

//like guns, shoot them for fun.
///Big believer that "subject to reasonable restrictions as to time place and manner to advance a compelling state interest" applies to the 2nd amendment just as much as the first or any other amendment
 
2014-02-12 01:17:38 PM

Magorn: DrBenway: When I read stories like this, I'm reminded of old Westerns where lawless towns were cleaned up and made safe for citizens to walk down the street without wearing a gun. In retrospect, I now see how very silly that idea was. Thoroughly and utterly unprogressive.

The most iconic moment in the lore of "the Old West"  was the shoot-out at the OK Corral.  A shootout that occurred when the local sheriff tried to enforce a city ordinance banning the carrying of guns within town limits.  I wonder why the NRA glosses over that fact when they wax nostalgic about  about those days?  To them Wyatt Earp should be cast as the villain of the piece, trying to deny the Constitutional rights of innocent gun owners, no?


Part of me wishes that something like the shower scene from The Rock happens, and all these tough-guy "I'll carry my piece where I wanna carry my piece!" just blast away at each other in a Stuckey's over an unkind word and someone dropping a plate.

I mean, surely if it's impermissible to wear a gun and have any alcohol in a bar, these law-abiding citizens - who have many times let us know that if gun laws were tighter, they'd own all the illegal guns they can fit in an underground bunker - would never dream of imbibing the Bad Decision Juice while wearing hip-iron, right?

The total lack of DWI/DUIs in South Carolina is further proof that alcohol and firearms law may as well be gospel in the Palmetto State.
 
2014-02-12 01:17:44 PM

FnkyTwn: I don't see what the problem is with allowing responsible gun owners to carry weapons anywhere they want. It's a little like Pit Bulls in that, until they do something horrible, they're perfectly fine dogs, and then if something bad happens it's the owners fault, and then that's what the court system is for.


The problem is that if violent crime rates do not notably increase, especially rates of crime committed by people who are legally carrying firearms in public, then firearm regulation advocates who oppose such measures will appear to be irrational and stupid.
 
2014-02-12 01:18:14 PM

TonnageVT: Ideally, evolution would happen and the idiots will shoot themselves.

Realistically, lots more headlines on Fark from SC regarding innocent people getting shot, possibly prompting it to have its own tag.


Ultimately, it's a self-correcting problem and the populations will self-segregate.  There will be the places where everyone is armed (many of the dive bars I frequented in college) and everyone knows it, and there will be places where no one is armed (franchise restaurant/bars I hang out in now).  Those looking to score or get involved in shady pool games will go to one, and those looking to play Golden Tee until 2 a.m. will end up at the other.
 
2014-02-12 01:18:59 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Frank N Stein: I see subby is still running with the "THE STREETS WILL RUN RED WITH BLOOD" hysteria

"What's the worst that could happen?" is quite a bit different from "hysteria."  But hey, go ahead and make sure the observable world fits your narrative.  That's the important thing.


So you're running with the oft-used "concern troll" trope that's cited so much around here. I'm really not trying to sound like a passive aggressive dick or anything, but either say what you think will be the outcome or don't speculate.

/really, sorry if I come off as abrasive. Can't really figure out a way to phrase this where I don't come off as kind of a dick.
 
2014-02-12 01:19:12 PM
Well it worked for these guys.....

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-12 01:21:56 PM

Frank N Stein: Saiga410: Just a simple progression of removing restrictions until you run into a problem.  We have allowed carry with training and removed some location restrictions without any major problems...  If this causes problems we can assume we have found the floor.  If no problems then we can go even farther.

Alaska was awesome in regards to concealed carry. Coming from Illinois to a place with constitutional carry was great. Same with open carry. Though I rarely concealed carry, there were quite a few times where I went for a hike with my bear gun, then stopped at a place to grab a bite to eat or something.


See? and this is why gun advocates need to realize that different states have different legitimate interests in firearm restriction.  Alaska is the least populated and largest state in the union, a place where being attacked by bears while going about your daily activities is not all that unlikely.   Carrying a gun is a prudent thing for many residents.   The same rules don;t really apply to say a multi-story apartment in Chicago where even an accidental discharge is likely to hit and injure somebody and being attacked by bears is really only likely on North Halstead.
 
2014-02-12 01:23:08 PM

Dr Dreidel: Magorn: DrBenway: When I read stories like this, I'm reminded of old Westerns where lawless towns were cleaned up and made safe for citizens to walk down the street without wearing a gun. In retrospect, I now see how very silly that idea was. Thoroughly and utterly unprogressive.

The most iconic moment in the lore of "the Old West"  was the shoot-out at the OK Corral.  A shootout that occurred when the local sheriff tried to enforce a city ordinance banning the carrying of guns within town limits.  I wonder why the NRA glosses over that fact when they wax nostalgic about  about those days?  To them Wyatt Earp should be cast as the villain of the piece, trying to deny the Constitutional rights of innocent gun owners, no?

Part of me wishes that something like the shower scene from The Rock happens, and all these tough-guy "I'll carry my piece where I wanna carry my piece!" just blast away at each other in a Stuckey's over an unkind word and someone dropping a plate.

I mean, surely if it's impermissible to wear a gun and have any alcohol in a bar, these law-abiding citizens - who have many times let us know that if gun laws were tighter, they'd own all the illegal guns they can fit in an underground bunker - would never dream of imbibing the Bad Decision Juice while wearing hip-iron, right?

The total lack of DWI/DUIs in South Carolina is further proof that alcohol and firearms law may as well be gospel in the Palmetto State.


As several states already allow the carrying of concealed firearms by licensed citizens in establishments where alcohol is served, then substantial data should exist to show that those states experience a higher rate of violent incidents caused by licensed firearm carriers who became intoxicated in such an establishment
 
2014-02-12 01:23:48 PM

Magorn: Frank N Stein: I see subby is still running with the "THE STREETS WILL RUN RED WITH BLOOD" hysteria

No subby is going with the "guns kill and injure people in accidents and accidental discharges at a rate FAR higher than the rate they are used in self defense, and alcohol is often a factor in both unintentional and intentional shootings, therefore lowering education requirements for gun handling and increasing the likelihood that they will be carried by someone who has also consumed alcohol, is a BAD thing and poorly thought out public policy"

/subby

//like guns, shoot them for fun.
///Big believer that "subject to reasonable restrictions as to time place and manner to advance a compelling state interest" applies to the 2nd amendment just as much as the first or any other amendment


I also believe in reasonable restrictions. Though I think we differ on what the "reasonable" part constitutes.

As for the rest, a person up thread cited Vermont having similar laws. I get that there's different demographics and what not that might lead to different outcomes. But as far as I know, concealed carry isn't causing these massive death tolls that some have predicted. And I also agree that one should never handle a firearm while intoxicated. But "bars", in the case of most states, are defined as a place that gets a large percentage (usually 59) of their revenue from alcohol sales. Stopping off at a bar for a burger at lunch, without consuming alcohol, should effect whether a person can carry or not
 
2014-02-12 01:25:15 PM

Frank N Stein: I see subby is still running with the "THE STREETS WILL RUN RED WITH BLOOD" hysteria


Here's the thing.  The majority of gun owners will probably NOT go running around like Rick Perry wildly firing into the air.  However, there are those few who WILL.  There are those who WILL use their firearm to resolve a civil dispute rather than talking things out.  And innocent people WILL die as a result.  The NRA will jump to defend the people who bully others around waving their firearms in their faces, saying "They're just law abiding people, exercising their rights", and they'll be correct.  If there are no laws against using a gun to threaten or intimidate, then all those who do that ARE "law-abiding"...if there are no restrictions about where and when and how you can use your gun, then everyone who shoots one anywhere IS "law-abiding".

Out of morbid curiosity, I wonder what would happen if I were to wear a claw-dagger to a bar...I'd be exercising my rights, and no one would have the right to be frightened of it, according to the NRA.  They couldn't kick me out for wearing it, either.  Even into a school, or better yet, a city council meeting.  "Tell me again, Mr Councilman, What PRECISELY you think about the condition of the roads in these here parts?"

// Not afraid of weapons of any kind...I've had too much training/practice to be afraid of any of them.  Only afraid of some of the nutcases that carry them.
 
2014-02-12 01:25:27 PM
 upload.wikimedia.org

Subby thinks she's a dumbass. Subby doesn't understand reality. Every state now allows some form of carrt. Most states allow carry in places where alcohol is served, but it is usually illegal to carry in public when consuming alcohol. There are penalties for breaking the law.

In a few years time, every state up there will at least be shall-issue. By that time, expect to see more states with no carry requirements at all. Haley has stated she will sign a Constitutional Carry law if it made it to her desk.
 
2014-02-12 01:26:23 PM

Magorn: Frank N Stein: Saiga410: Just a simple progression of removing restrictions until you run into a problem.  We have allowed carry with training and removed some location restrictions without any major problems...  If this causes problems we can assume we have found the floor.  If no problems then we can go even farther.

Alaska was awesome in regards to concealed carry. Coming from Illinois to a place with constitutional carry was great. Same with open carry. Though I rarely concealed carry, there were quite a few times where I went for a hike with my bear gun, then stopped at a place to grab a bite to eat or something.

See? and this is why gun advocates need to realize that different states have different legitimate interests in firearm restriction.  Alaska is the least populated and largest state in the union, a place where being attacked by bears while going about your daily activities is not all that unlikely.   Carrying a gun is a prudent thing for many residents.   The same rules don;t really apply to say a multi-story apartment in Chicago where even an accidental discharge is likely to hit and injure somebody and being attacked by bears is really only likely on North Halstead.


What's funny is that I've lived all over Chicago. The south side, the Bridgeport neighborhood to be exact, was my favorite neighborhood in Chicago. I'm on the west side now, and it feels less safe than Bridgeport. And the only place I was I actually attacked was on the north side (got into a fist fight with some guy)
 
2014-02-12 01:27:39 PM

Lord_Baull: We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.

But to carry a tool that can easily cause the death of another individual through misuse? Meh.


FTFY.

Seriously, the only way it doesn't kill another individual is if it's misused.  If it's used the way it's intended, something's gonna die.
 
2014-02-12 01:27:41 PM

A Cave Geek: Out of morbid curiosity, I wonder what would happen if I were to wear a claw-dagger to a bar...I'd be exercising my rights, and no one would have the right to be frightened of it, according to the NRA.  They couldn't kick me out for wearing it, either.


You are correct, because private establishments are not allowed, in any state, to request that persons leave the premises.
 
2014-02-12 01:28:17 PM
Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.
 
2014-02-12 01:28:57 PM
Dimensio:
As several states already allow the carrying of concealed firearms by licensed citizens in establishments where alcohol is served, then substantial data should exist to show that those states experience a higher rate of violent incidents caused by licensed firearm carriers who became intoxicated in such an establishment

Woh, stop it with this fascist "we should legislate from facts instead of gut reaction."  If  this goes through I am certain we are all going to die.
 
2014-02-12 01:28:59 PM

pueblonative: Lord_Baull: We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.

But to carry a tool that can easily cause the death of another individual through misuse? Meh.

FTFY.

Seriously, the only way it doesn't kill another individual is if it's misused.  If it's used the way it's intended, something's gonna die.


Are you saying that I have misused my firearms on every occasion that I have taken them to a local firing range?

Did attaching my silencer to my handgun cause it to be misused also, or was it properly used (as a noise reduction tool) while the handgun itself was misused?
 
2014-02-12 01:30:13 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.


Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.
 
2014-02-12 01:30:54 PM

Dimensio: As several states already allow the carrying of concealed firearms by licensed citizens in establishments where alcohol is served, then substantial data should exist to show that those states experience a higher rate of violent incidents caused by licensed firearm carriers who became intoxicated in such an establishment


You're right, of course. The fact that the law sets up horrible scenarios is no argument against passing the law, or even examining ways to reduce the incidence of such situations, perhaps through a rewriting of the law, or changing its focus.

No, clearly THIS is the one perfect gun law that will finally end the debate in SC and elsewhere and prove that guns are no more or less safe than bubble wrap.
 
2014-02-12 01:32:21 PM

sprawl15: TonnageVT: Ideally, evolution would happen and the idiots will shoot themselves.

technically speaking evolution would only ensure the most capable shots survive which would probably be linked to aggression and psychopathy

 proper and sufficient training with their firearm of choice.
 
2014-02-12 01:32:42 PM
From what we've seen later it won't be any worse than letting cops carry guns.
 
2014-02-12 01:33:12 PM

ManateeGag: OK.  then let's also let people drive without a license or training.  what's the worst that could happen?


How about letting people vote without a license?  GOP:  no no no no no!
 
2014-02-12 01:33:49 PM
As long as individual business owners remain free to ban firearms on their own premises, I don't have a huge problem with this. Personally I would prefer to avoid drinking among armed gun nuts, but that's just because I grew up in a place where getting drunk, driving out of town, and shooting up speed limit signs was a local tradition.
 
2014-02-12 01:35:23 PM

Dr Dreidel: Dimensio: As several states already allow the carrying of concealed firearms by licensed citizens in establishments where alcohol is served, then substantial data should exist to show that those states experience a higher rate of violent incidents caused by licensed firearm carriers who became intoxicated in such an establishment

You're right, of course. The fact that the law sets up horrible scenarios is no argument against passing the law, or even examining ways to reduce the incidence of such situations, perhaps through a rewriting of the law, or changing its focus.

No, clearly THIS is the one perfect gun law that will finally end the debate in SC and elsewhere and prove that guns are no more or less safe than bubble wrap.


I have reconsidered my position. Previously, my conclusions were based upon observable reality but until you suggested the concept, I had not thought to contemplate entirely hypothetical "horrible scenarios", which I must now concede are a far better basis for legislative policy.

Additionally, are you unaware that two laws are being discussed, not a single law? The first, already passed, eliminates the state's current prohibition upon the carrying of firearms by licensed civilians into establishments where alcohol is served (though carriers cannot consume alcohol on the premises). The second, which is under consideration (and which is unlikely to pass) would eliminate the state's permit requirement for carrying a concealed firearm.
 
2014-02-12 01:35:58 PM

Dr Dreidel: Magorn: DrBenway: When I read stories like this, I'm reminded of old Westerns where lawless towns were cleaned up and made safe for citizens to walk down the street without wearing a gun. In retrospect, I now see how very silly that idea was. Thoroughly and utterly unprogressive.

The most iconic moment in the lore of "the Old West"  was the shoot-out at the OK Corral.  A shootout that occurred when the local sheriff tried to enforce a city ordinance banning the carrying of guns within town limits.  I wonder why the NRA glosses over that fact when they wax nostalgic about  about those days?  To them Wyatt Earp should be cast as the villain of the piece, trying to deny the Constitutional rights of innocent gun owners, no?

Part of me wishes that something like the shower scene from The Rock happens, and all these tough-guy "I'll carry my piece where I wanna carry my piece!" just blast away at each other in a Stuckey's over an unkind word and someone dropping a plate.

I mean, surely if it's impermissible to wear a gun and have any alcohol in a bar, these law-abiding citizens - who have many times let us know that if gun laws were tighter, they'd own all the illegal guns they can fit in an underground bunker - would never dream of imbibing the Bad Decision Juice while wearing hip-iron, right?

The total lack of DWI/DUIs in South Carolina is further proof that alcohol and firearms law may as well be gospel in the Palmetto State.


I'd like to see someone propose a criminal law for CWI "carrying while intoxicated"  public intoxication is already a crime, so itf you do it with a gun it is what lawyers call an "aggravating factor" or "sentence enhancer"   It's be interesting to see whether the NRA would oppose a common-sense safety measure like that.
 
2014-02-12 01:37:47 PM
I wonder what her view is on cranky constituents carrying guns into the governor's office.

"That's different, obviously."
 
2014-02-12 01:40:05 PM

FnkyTwn: I don't see what the problem is with allowing responsible gun owners to carry weapons anywhere they want. It's a little like Pit Bulls in that, until they do something horrible, they're perfectly fine dogs, and then if something bad happens it's the owners fault, and then that's what the court system is for.


Ya im with this guy. If youre going to allow open or conceal carry, i dont see why youre limiting the location unless you can show that certain locations are inherently more risky. Maybe alcohol consumption qualifies, but id like to see data supporting that.

Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.
 
2014-02-12 01:40:09 PM
I strongly support this bill.  This would be so awesome to watch.

/from a safe distance
//with at least a two-state buffer
 
2014-02-12 01:41:38 PM
Magorn

public intoxication is already a crime...

No.
 
2014-02-12 01:43:56 PM

Magorn: Just like "Bobby" Jindal, what kind of grown-ass man still wants to be called "Bobby"?


Piyush picked the nickname "Bobby" after watching one too many re-runs of the Brady Bunch.

I wish I was kidding.
 
2014-02-12 01:44:19 PM

Magorn: Dr Dreidel: Magorn: DrBenway: When I read stories like this, I'm reminded of old Westerns where lawless towns were cleaned up and made safe for citizens to walk down the street without wearing a gun. In retrospect, I now see how very silly that idea was. Thoroughly and utterly unprogressive.

The most iconic moment in the lore of "the Old West"  was the shoot-out at the OK Corral.  A shootout that occurred when the local sheriff tried to enforce a city ordinance banning the carrying of guns within town limits.  I wonder why the NRA glosses over that fact when they wax nostalgic about  about those days?  To them Wyatt Earp should be cast as the villain of the piece, trying to deny the Constitutional rights of innocent gun owners, no?

Part of me wishes that something like the shower scene from The Rock happens, and all these tough-guy "I'll carry my piece where I wanna carry my piece!" just blast away at each other in a Stuckey's over an unkind word and someone dropping a plate.

I mean, surely if it's impermissible to wear a gun and have any alcohol in a bar, these law-abiding citizens - who have many times let us know that if gun laws were tighter, they'd own all the illegal guns they can fit in an underground bunker - would never dream of imbibing the Bad Decision Juice while wearing hip-iron, right?

The total lack of DWI/DUIs in South Carolina is further proof that alcohol and firearms law may as well be gospel in the Palmetto State.

I'd like to see someone propose a criminal law for CWI "carrying while intoxicated"  public intoxication is already a crime, so itf you do it with a gun it is what lawyers call an "aggravating factor" or "sentence enhancer"   It's be interesting to see whether the NRA would oppose a common-sense safety measure like that.


Merely declaring a measure as "common sense" renders it easily dismissed; many entirely unreasonable proposals are claimed to be "common sense" as a substitute for presenting any rational justification for them (because, in those cases, no real justification exists).

Rather than arguing "common sense", the prohibition should be advocated because alcohol impairs judgment, which may cause a firearm carrier to be unable to determine whether or not the use of their carried firearm is appropriate at a given time. Using that as the argument, rather than merely an appeal to "common sense", will make opposition more difficult to argue.
 
2014-02-12 01:45:28 PM

Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.


Pretty sure actuaries require a license, hoss.
 
2014-02-12 01:45:32 PM

Dimensio: pueblonative: Lord_Baull: We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.

But to carry a tool that can easily cause the death of another individual through misuse? Meh.

FTFY.

Seriously, the only way it doesn't kill another individual is if it's misused.  If it's used the way it's intended, something's gonna die.

Are you saying that I have misused my firearms on every occasion that I have taken them to a local firing range?

Did attaching my silencer to my handgun cause it to be misused also, or was it properly used (as a noise reduction tool) while the handgun itself was misused?

I was imagining I was Jack Bauer.

FTFAccuracy
 
2014-02-12 01:45:45 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Magorn

public intoxication is already a crime...

No.


It depends. In some jurisdictions it is, and in other jurisdictions it isn't.
 
2014-02-12 01:46:26 PM

Kiriyama9000: There are penalties for breaking the law.


That the NRA is actively trying to get removed.

One
Two
Three
Four
 
2014-02-12 01:48:21 PM

TwistedIvory: So, very similar to the legislation that Arizona has? Because let me tell you, since that law went into effect three years ago it has been nothing but bloodbaths in the streets.

Oh wait, no, the opposite of that.


**sigh**

This.  I think that's what really has the gun grabbers getting so desperate.  Also whenever one kid gets shot in a racially charged case, even the President chimes in on it.  However, 40-70 people are shot in Chicago every week and it barely makes their local news.

The simple fact is that firearms have become much more available, carry permits are widely available, SCOTUS has validated the individual right, and restrictions have repealed over the last 20 years.  And violent crime involving firearms has fallen 50%.

Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming already do this and there is no blood in the streets.  What exactly is the objection?
 
2014-02-12 01:48:36 PM

justtray: Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.


Is there a state that prevents businesses from disallowing firearms from  the premises?
 
2014-02-12 01:49:07 PM

John the Magnificent: Dimensio: pueblonative: Lord_Baull: We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.

But to carry a tool that can easily cause the death of another individual through misuse? Meh.

FTFY.

Seriously, the only way it doesn't kill another individual is if it's misused.  If it's used the way it's intended, something's gonna die.

Are you saying that I have misused my firearms on every occasion that I have taken them to a local firing range?

Did attaching my silencer to my handgun cause it to be misused also, or was it properly used (as a noise reduction tool) while the handgun itself was misused?I was imagining I was Jack Bauer.

FTFAccuracy


You have confused your psychological projection for "accuracy".
 
2014-02-12 01:49:52 PM

Dimensio: Additionally, are you unaware that two laws are being discussed, not a single law? The first, already passed, eliminates the state's current prohibition upon the carrying of firearms by licensed civilians into establishments where alcohol is served (though carriers cannot consume alcohol on the premises). The second, which is under consideration (and which is unlikely to pass) would eliminate the state's permit requirement for carrying a concealed firearm.


Oh. My mistake.

// then it's just the second one I have a real problem with (though I still maintain that a state with 14,742 DUIs in 2013 should probably not rely on the honor system for allowing guns in bars)
 
2014-02-12 01:50:08 PM

justtray: FnkyTwn: I don't see what the problem is with allowing responsible gun owners to carry weapons anywhere they want. It's a little like Pit Bulls in that, until they do something horrible, they're perfectly fine dogs, and then if something bad happens it's the owners fault, and then that's what the court system is for.

Ya im with this guy. If youre going to allow open or conceal carry, i dont see why youre limiting the location unless you can show that certain locations are inherently more risky. Maybe alcohol consumption qualifies, but id like to see data supporting that.

Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.


You need to see data that alcohol consumption reduces inhibitions and causes ordinarily sensible people to act like jackasses... sometimes in an overly aggressive manner.

Seriously?  You need data on that?

Have you ever even been to a bar?
 
2014-02-12 01:50:19 PM

Dimensio: A Cave Geek: Out of morbid curiosity, I wonder what would happen if I were to wear a claw-dagger to a bar...I'd be exercising my rights, and no one would have the right to be frightened of it, according to the NRA.  They couldn't kick me out for wearing it, either.

You are correct, because private establishments are not allowed, in any state, to request that persons leave the premises.


Ok, I'll grant you the bar thing.  Spoke without thinking it through.  But the city council one would hold.  That's public property, and if the "Low" midwest is any indication, city councils won't be able to deny "law abiding" citizens to carry their arms wherever they want on public property(Kansas).
 
2014-02-12 01:51:39 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Magorn

public intoxication is already a crime...

No.


---
actually, yes

SECTION 16-17-530. Public disorderly conduct.

Any person who shall (a) be found on any highway or at any public place or public gathering in a grossly intoxicated condition or otherwise conducting himself in a disorderly or boisterous manner, (b) use obscene or profane language on any highway or at any public place or gathering or in hearing distance of any schoolhouse or church or (c) while under the influence or feigning to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor, without just cause or excuse, discharge any gun, pistol or other firearm while upon or within fifty yards of any public road or highway, except upon his own premises, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days


Interestingly FIRING a gun in such condition is already criminalized, but by the construction of the statute,  if you are already grossly intoxicated, you may as well pop off a few rounds since it has no extra penalty
 
2014-02-12 01:52:16 PM

Dimensio: John the Magnificent: Dimensio: pueblonative: Lord_Baull: We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.

But to carry a tool that can easily cause the death of another individual through misuse? Meh.

FTFY.

Seriously, the only way it doesn't kill another individual is if it's misused.  If it's used the way it's intended, something's gonna die.

Are you saying that I have misused my firearms on every occasion that I have taken them to a local firing range?

Did attaching my silencer to my handgun cause it to be misused also, or was it properly used (as a noise reduction tool) while the handgun itself was misused?I was imagining I was Jack Bauer.

FTFAccuracy

You have confused your psychological projection for "accuracy".


Ooooooooookay.
 
2014-02-12 01:52:16 PM
Of course, let people carry guns into the bar, provided that they don't drink.

Gun crazed people that want to drink will eagerly leave the gun behind and most likely to get drunk will behave very rationale and responbisbly.
 
2014-02-12 01:53:03 PM

DrBenway: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Pretty sure actuaries require a license, hoss.


And is that some sort of argument against? It doesn't really matter if the amount is negligible or steep, we've identified that guns can cause unintended harm and have put the burden of paying for that harm on the ones who insist we still need guns, the gun owners.
 
2014-02-12 01:54:14 PM

Magorn: I'd like to see someone propose a criminal law for CWI "carrying while intoxicated"  public intoxication is already a crime, so itf you do it with a gun it is what lawyers call an "aggravating factor" or "sentence enhancer"   It's be interesting to see whether the NRA would oppose a common-sense safety measure like that


There is only one state I can think of where carrying under the influence isn't already a crime.  In many, it will cost you your permit.
 
2014-02-12 01:55:03 PM

Magorn: I'd like to see someone propose a criminal law for CWI "carrying while intoxicated"


They're already on the books.  I'm not aware of any state where it's legal to carry while drunk.

Here in Michigan the limit is .02 BAC.
 
2014-02-12 02:01:48 PM

BMulligan: As long as individual business owners remain free to ban firearms on their own premises, I don't have a huge problem with this. Personally I would prefer to avoid drinking among armed gun nuts, but that's just because I grew up in a place where getting drunk, driving out of town, and shooting up speed limit signs was a local tradition.


The business owner can post the signs, but what's the recourse against someone smuggling a gun in and using it?  They'll be tried with whatever the penalties for using the gun are, but there wouldn't seem to be an incentive to obey the no-guns policy instituted by the owners.  Sure, the owners can kick them out if they detect the weapon, but that's it and only then.
 
2014-02-12 02:03:35 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: DrBenway: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Pretty sure actuaries require a license, hoss.

And is that some sort of argument against? It doesn't really matter if the amount is negligible or steep, we've identified that guns can cause unintended harm and have put the burden of paying for that harm on the ones who insist we still need guns, the gun owners.


I was not arguing against the concept; I was merely asking for an assessment of the "damage" that licensed concealed weapons permit holders typically cause through negligence.
 
2014-02-12 02:04:36 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: DrBenway: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Pretty sure actuaries require a license, hoss.

And is that some sort of argument against? It doesn't really matter if the amount is negligible or steep, we've identified that guns can cause unintended harm and have put the burden of paying for that harm on the ones who insist we still need guns, the gun owners.


I reckon that's intended for Dimensio, right? I thought there was some irony in him calling for off-the-cuff rate calculations being made when professionals who do it for a living are required to have a license. A license, can you imagine? What about our precious freedom to miscalculate?
 
2014-02-12 02:04:45 PM
Yes, because this worked so well in the old west.
 
2014-02-12 02:07:06 PM
A young cowboy named Billy Joe grew restless on the farm
A boy filled with wonderlust who really meant no harm
He changed his clothes and shined his boots
And combed his dark hair down
And his mother cried as he walked out

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town

He laughed and kissed his mom
And said your Billy Joe's a man
I can shoot as quick and straight as anybody can
But I wouldn't shoot without a cause
I'd gun nobody down
But she cried again as he rode away

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town

He sang a song as on he rode
His guns hung at his hips
He rode into a cattle town
A smile upon his lips
He stopped and walked into a bar
And laid his money down
But his mother's words echoed again

Dont take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town

He drank his first strong liquor then to calm his shaking hand
And tried to tell himself he had become a man
A dusty cowpoke at his side began to laugh him down
And he heard again his mothers words

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town

Filled with rage then
Billy Joe reached for his gun to draw
But the stranger drew his gun and fired
Before he even saw
As Billy Joe fell to the floor
The crowd all gathered 'round
And wondered at his final words

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town
 
2014-02-12 02:10:50 PM

Saiga410: justtray: Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.

Is there a state that prevents businesses from disallowing firearms from  the premises?


I honestly don't know. But I wouldn't be surpirsed, and if there is, I disagree. I vaguely remember some arguments on here about how certain area men think that their 2nd amendment right is unlimited thus they just ignore "no guns" signs as non enforcable. Which is why I brought it up.
 
2014-02-12 02:14:08 PM

John the Magnificent: justtray: FnkyTwn: I don't see what the problem is with allowing responsible gun owners to carry weapons anywhere they want. It's a little like Pit Bulls in that, until they do something horrible, they're perfectly fine dogs, and then if something bad happens it's the owners fault, and then that's what the court system is for.

Ya im with this guy. If youre going to allow open or conceal carry, i dont see why youre limiting the location unless you can show that certain locations are inherently more risky. Maybe alcohol consumption qualifies, but id like to see data supporting that.

Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.

You need to see data that alcohol consumption reduces inhibitions and causes ordinarily sensible people to act like jackasses... sometimes in an overly aggressive manner.

Seriously?  You need data on that?

Have you ever even been to a bar?


No, I need to see data that shows that just because someone acts like a jackass it means they're going to shoot someone. I don't personally equate being a douche with murder. Additionally, having seen and been in a few bar fights myself, having had a dozen stitches in my forehead from being hit with 'something,' I don't personally consider the availability of a gun to necessarily be more dangerous in that situation than not. At the very least I'd like data that shows that it is. I haven't even heard anecdotal stories of it happening in bars. To me it seems like people just want to beat eachother, not kill
 
2014-02-12 02:14:34 PM
I suppose someone should point out that Indiana has no training requirement for it carry permit and you can drink in bars while carrying. I can't find anything saying there is a BAC equivalent either. Then again, there hasn't exactly been a rash of CCW drunks shooting people either. Last time I heard anything like that was a guy who shot people in self-defense in Broadripple. No charges were filed.
 
2014-02-12 02:17:58 PM

redmid17: I suppose someone should point out that Indiana has no training requirement for it carry permit and you can drink in bars while carrying. I can't find anything saying there is a BAC equivalent either. Then again, there hasn't exactly been a rash of CCW drunks shooting people either. Last time I heard anything like that was a guy who shot people in self-defense in Broadripple. No charges were filed.


True, but the only thing worse than dying in Indiana is living in Indiana.
 
2014-02-12 02:19:19 PM

EyeballKid: redmid17: I suppose someone should point out that Indiana has no training requirement for it carry permit and you can drink in bars while carrying. I can't find anything saying there is a BAC equivalent either. Then again, there hasn't exactly been a rash of CCW drunks shooting people either. Last time I heard anything like that was a guy who shot people in self-defense in Broadripple. No charges were filed.

True, but the only thing worse than dying in Indiana is living in Indiana.


I'd come up with a witty retort, but it would be undermined by me leaving Indiana for a job and not coming back (yet).
 
2014-02-12 02:19:29 PM

redmid17: I suppose someone should point out that Indiana has no training requirement for it carry permit and you can drink in bars while carrying. I can't find anything saying there is a BAC equivalent either. Then again, there hasn't exactly been a rash of CCW drunks shooting people either. Last time I heard anything like that was a guy who shot people in self-defense in Broadripple. No charges were filed.


You are making the common mistake of relying upon reality rather than upon hypothetical scenarios in your decision-making.
 
2014-02-12 02:20:39 PM

Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.


Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?
 
2014-02-12 02:23:45 PM

The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?


Hey man, if you cant meet his impossibly specific standards personally with data either not available, or difficult to obtain without estimation then the concept itself is wrong and furthermore such as...
 
2014-02-12 02:24:29 PM
Magorn

SECTION 16-17-530. Public disorderly conduct.

Public disorderly conduct. Not public intoxication. The statute itself mentions "grossly intoxicated," which usually means "drunk and screaming at the cops or random bystanders" or the like You can be charged under this without a drop of alcohol in you. The meaningful part of your citation is conduct, not intoxication, contrasted with many states that specifically outlaw actual public intoxication, rather than a more general "disorderly conduct," or the more common specifically stated "drunk and disorderly" conduct.

Not really worth arguing about, though; I was simply suggesting (in an obviously overly-curt manner that necessitated explanation) that your idea of "CWI" as a "sentence enhancer" to public intoxication would first require public intoxication to be illegal itself, as it is in some states, but not South Carolina.
 
2014-02-12 02:27:40 PM

justtray: No, I need to see data that shows that just because someone acts like a jackass it means they're going to shoot someone. I don't personally equate being a douche with murder. Additionally, having seen and been in a few bar fights myself, having had a dozen stitches in my forehead from being hit with 'something,' I don't personally consider the availability of a gun to necessarily be more dangerous in that situation than not. At the very least I'd like data that shows that it is. I haven't even heard anecdotal stories of it happening in bars. To me it seems like people just want to beat eachother, not kill


Well now, if "something" happens to be a bullet, I'm guessing stitches in your forehead won't be doing you a whole lot of good. But you're apparently okay with that possibility so here's to you. Skoal, brother.
 
2014-02-12 02:28:50 PM

The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?


I mean required gun insurance would probably run afoul of a court challenge anyway.
 
2014-02-12 02:29:29 PM

The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?


No.
 
2014-02-12 02:30:16 PM

The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?



Yeah - I mean, it is clearly impossible to have any coherent system of insurance covering things like cars, houses, construction equipment, negligence, health care, people's lives, celebrities' boobs, etc.  So how could anyone think that it could possibly work for guns?
 
2014-02-12 02:31:19 PM

Chummer45: The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?


Yeah - I mean, it is clearly impossible to have any coherent system of insurance covering things like cars, houses, construction equipment, negligence, health care, people's lives, celebrities' boobs, etc.  So how could anyone think that it could possibly work for guns?


I have merely requested an assessment of the damage caused by concealed weapons permit holders. I have made no statement regarding the feasibility of an insurance system for such individuals.
 
2014-02-12 02:31:47 PM

redmid17: The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?

I mean required gun insurance would probably run afoul of a court challenge anyway.



Why would you think that?  Let me guess - "because second amendment is absolute whaaargarrrbl."
 
2014-02-12 02:33:53 PM

justtray: I haven't even heard anecdotal stories of it happening in bars.


Here you go, man.
 
2014-02-12 02:34:05 PM

DrBenway: justtray: No, I need to see data that shows that just because someone acts like a jackass it means they're going to shoot someone. I don't personally equate being a douche with murder. Additionally, having seen and been in a few bar fights myself, having had a dozen stitches in my forehead from being hit with 'something,' I don't personally consider the availability of a gun to necessarily be more dangerous in that situation than not. At the very least I'd like data that shows that it is. I haven't even heard anecdotal stories of it happening in bars. To me it seems like people just want to beat eachother, not kill

Well now, if "something" happens to be a bullet, I'm guessing stitches in your forehead won't be doing you a whole lot of good. But you're apparently okay with that possibility so here's to you. Skoal, brother.



Ah yes, the "getting shot by a gun is the exact same as being hit by a pool cue, because either could kill you" argument.

Of course, the follow up is: lets assume that you're being forced to cage fight a person.  Would you rather fight a person with a gun, or a person with a pool cue?
 
2014-02-12 02:34:37 PM

justtray: Saiga410: justtray: Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.

Is there a state that prevents businesses from disallowing firearms from  the premises?

I honestly don't know. But I wouldn't be surpirsed, and if there is, I disagree. I vaguely remember some arguments on here about how certain area men think that their 2nd amendment right is unlimited thus they just ignore "no guns" signs as non enforcable. Which is why I brought it up.


And  the folks that enter a marked premise carrying but are later found out should be charged with criminal traspass.
 
2014-02-12 02:35:45 PM

Dimensio: I have merely requested an assessment of the damage caused by concealed weapons permit holders. I have made no statement regarding the feasibility of an insurance system for such individuals.


Translation: "Aww, come on! Come down this rabbit hole with me!  It'll be fun!"
 
2014-02-12 02:38:02 PM

The Name: Dimensio: I have merely requested an assessment of the damage caused by concealed weapons permit holders. I have made no statement regarding the feasibility of an insurance system for such individuals.

Translation: "Aww, come on! Come down this rabbit hole with me!  It'll be fun!"


Dishonestly misrepresenting my position is not logically equivalent to a stated assessment of damage. While I understand that the two concepts can be confusing to individuals with a poor comprehension of reality, they are in fact distinct.
 
2014-02-12 02:43:51 PM
In a few years time, every state up there will at least be shall-issue.

I'm not sure I believe that.

/Maryland resident
// Massachusetts citizen.
 
2014-02-12 02:47:33 PM
My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country
 
2014-02-12 02:47:33 PM

Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?

I mean required gun insurance would probably run afoul of a court challenge anyway.


Why would you think that?  Let me guess - "because second amendment is absolute whaaargarrrbl."


Well no. If there were any kind of feasibility or merit to the measure, one would think that it wold have been applied to hunting licenses long ago. There are 2x as many hunters as there are CCW holders (last time I read the DOJ and FWS numbers). The only hunting insurance I'm aware of is for people who allow hunting on their land (ie preserves, farmers et al). The NRA does offer liability insurance for self-defense but I can't find any numbers for it. You'd also have to bridge the difference between permit itself and the firearm(s). You don't need insurance to get a driver's license.

But thanks for guessing. I suspect the fact the 2nd amendment, though not absolute, would be a large barrier to implementing it. Courts have held that training other requirements (non-felon, non drug abuser et al) are fine. They've also held that unneccessarily difficult regulations cannot -- heavy training requirements but no ranges or instructors inside city limits, no gun stores in city limits, no transfer, et al.

I'm sure someone can bring the legalese into it. One of them Fark GED guys for sure.
 
2014-02-12 02:51:08 PM

redmid17: If there were any kind of feasibility or merit to the measure, one would think that it wold have been applied to hunting licenses long ago.


Yeah, because it's not like gun enthusiasts actually lobby to prevent gun control or anything.
 
2014-02-12 02:53:06 PM

The Name: redmid17: If there were any kind of feasibility or merit to the measure, one would think that it wold have been applied to hunting licenses long ago.

Yeah, because it's not like gun enthusiasts actually lobby to prevent gun control or anything.


If you actually knew anything about the NRA prior to the late 1970s, this would be a good time to show it. However if you don't or won't take 30 seconds to google it, keep digging yourself deeper. It is amusing and my afternoon is going slowly.
 
2014-02-12 02:53:48 PM

Dimensio: The Name: Dimensio: I have merely requested an assessment of the damage caused by concealed weapons permit holders. I have made no statement regarding the feasibility of an insurance system for such individuals.

Translation: "Aww, come on! Come down this rabbit hole with me!  It'll be fun!"

Dishonestly misrepresenting my position is not logically equivalent to a stated assessment of damage. While I understand that the two concepts can be confusing to individuals with a poor comprehension of reality, they are in fact distinct.


Okay, C3PO.  But I should point out that I wasn't representing your position -I was representing your mode of argumentation.  They're two different things.
 
2014-02-12 02:54:59 PM

The Name: justtray: I haven't even heard anecdotal stories of it happening in bars.

Here you go, man.


Link 1 - The bar was closed at the time.
Link 2 - It happened around 4 a.m. in the parking lot of Flashbacks Sports Bar
Link 3 -  Witnesses then saw that unidentified man walk out of the bar, grab a gun from his vehicle and shoot Richard once in the head, according to Sheriff's Office.
Link 4 - Bartender shoots man in self defense, no charges filed.

I guess one-half out of four isn't too bad. It's not a passing grade, but you get effort for trying. You'll have to work harder though to show that guns in bars cause any extra harm. None of these fit that criteria at all.
 
2014-02-12 02:55:07 PM

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: If there were any kind of feasibility or merit to the measure, one would think that it wold have been applied to hunting licenses long ago.

Yeah, because it's not like gun enthusiasts actually lobby to prevent gun control or anything.

If you actually knew anything about the NRA prior to the late 1970s, this would be a good time to show it. However if you don't or won't take 30 seconds to google it, keep digging yourself deeper. It is amusing and my afternoon is going slowly.


The 70s ended 44 years ago, dude.
 
2014-02-12 02:57:44 PM

Masso: Of course, let people carry guns into the bar, provided that they don't drink.

Gun crazed people that want to drink will eagerly leave the gun behind and most likely to get drunk will behave very rationale and responbisbly.


The other option is the equivalent of banning anyone from driving a car to a bar because some people will drink and drive.  You criminalize the behavior you want to end, not one possible intermediate step that may lead to that behavior.  Banning people from carrying at bars will do nothing to stop Billy-Bob from strapping on a gun and getting shiat faced at his buddy's house then wandering around town.  As long as the level of intoxication in the law is reasonable, possibly the same as for a DUI charge, I would think that a carrying a firearm while intoxicated law would be fairly easy to pass.
 
2014-02-12 02:59:13 PM

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: If there were any kind of feasibility or merit to the measure, one would think that it wold have been applied to hunting licenses long ago.

Yeah, because it's not like gun enthusiasts actually lobby to prevent gun control or anything.

If you actually knew anything about the NRA prior to the late 1970s, this would be a good time to show it. However if you don't or won't take 30 seconds to google it, keep digging yourself deeper. It is amusing and my afternoon is going slowly.

The 70s ended 44 years ago, dude.


Yes. How long do you think hunting licenses and wildlife management programs have been around?
 
2014-02-12 02:59:47 PM

StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country



I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.
 
2014-02-12 03:00:33 PM

Saiga410: justtray: Saiga410: justtray: Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.

Is there a state that prevents businesses from disallowing firearms from  the premises?

I honestly don't know. But I wouldn't be surpirsed, and if there is, I disagree. I vaguely remember some arguments on here about how certain area men think that their 2nd amendment right is unlimited thus they just ignore "no guns" signs as non enforcable. Which is why I brought it up.

And  the folks that enter a marked premise carrying but are later found out should be charged with criminal traspass.


I absolutely agree with this. Or wreckless endangerment.
 
2014-02-12 03:00:42 PM
StopLurkListen

But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

At the risk of sounding tasteless: shoot.

More seriously, I don't think Carolinians carrying firearms into bars or whatever will help or hurt your child's school to respond appropriately to a carjacking elsewhere.
 
2014-02-12 03:00:51 PM

The Name: StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.


Probably because it's a blatant troll.
 
2014-02-12 03:03:04 PM

redmid17: The Name: StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.

Probably because it's a blatant troll.


Yeah, and we all know that trolls NEVER get any hits on Fark.
 
2014-02-12 03:05:05 PM

The Name: redmid17: The Name: StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.

Probably because it's a blatant troll.

Yeah, and we all know that trolls NEVER get any hits on Fark.


It did get a hit.

The Name: I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.

 
2014-02-12 03:08:31 PM

redmid17: It did get a hit.


Your sarcasm detector must be broken.

But anyway -Dimensio, redmid17, DoomMD, Frank N Stein, there's a gun-grabber here who needs to be set straight on the facts about guns and crime!
 
2014-02-12 03:08:35 PM

Chummer45: DrBenway: justtray: No, I need to see data that shows that just because someone acts like a jackass it means they're going to shoot someone. I don't personally equate being a douche with murder. Additionally, having seen and been in a few bar fights myself, having had a dozen stitches in my forehead from being hit with 'something,' I don't personally consider the availability of a gun to necessarily be more dangerous in that situation than not. At the very least I'd like data that shows that it is. I haven't even heard anecdotal stories of it happening in bars. To me it seems like people just want to beat eachother, not kill

Well now, if "something" happens to be a bullet, I'm guessing stitches in your forehead won't be doing you a whole lot of good. But you're apparently okay with that possibility so here's to you. Skoal, brother.


Ah yes, the "getting shot by a gun is the exact same as being hit by a pool cue, because either could kill you" argument.

Of course, the follow up is: lets assume that you're being forced to cage fight a person.  Would you rather fight a person with a gun, or a person with a pool cue?


Well, he's never heard of such a thing happening, so why isn't that good enough for you? Personally, I've always tried to make it a point to keep out of bar fights, but what do I know?
 
2014-02-12 03:10:21 PM

Saiga410: Lord_Baull: We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.

But to carry a tool that can easily cause the death of another individual through misuse? Meh.

OK but none of that training is required by law.  Proficiency and knowledge of the laws surrounding driving a car maybe but the rest.... nope not seeing your point.



The point is, training is not required to operate a tool, but even the most potato can see the benefits of handling said tool safely.
 
2014-02-12 03:11:38 PM
And for the general education of the thread, hunting licenses and wildlife management programs have been around for more than a century. That's why populations of deer, elk, wolves, turkeys, geese, and pretty much any other threatened species have been rebounding.  If there had ever been good reason to have hunting license insurance for the hunter, it would have happened sometime between the early 1900s and late 70s when the NRA transformed from solely a sportsmen's organization and the sportsmen/lobby organization* that it is today. Per conjecture on my parts, but I'd imagine there are far more bullets fired during a hunting season in the smallest state than there are bullets fired in self-defense for the whole country in a year.

* yes I realize the NRA and the NRA-ILA are separate
 
2014-02-12 03:12:44 PM

The Name: redmid17: It did get a hit.

Your sarcasm detector must be broken.

But anyway -Dimensio, redmid17, DoomMD, Frank N Stein, there's a gun-grabber here who needs to be set straight on the facts about guns and crime!


It's often hard to tell the difference between stupid/ignorance posts and sarcasm. Given your track record in the thread, I opted for the former.
 
2014-02-12 03:18:49 PM

redmid17: It's often hard to tell the difference between stupid/ignorance posts and sarcasm.


Wait a minute . . . so I say something that, taken without sarcasm, would have supported your argument, i.e. that that post did not get any replies because it was a troll, with the implication that people on Fark tend to ignore trolls; however, taken WITH sarcasm, it would have been a retort not only supporting my argument (that, knowing Fark, this "troll" should have received some hits by now), but also would have been characteristic of the way I have replied to you throughout this thread and others --and you couldn't tell which one it was?

You lack the capacity to glean from context even the most superficial meanings of everyday statements, and I'M the stupid one?
 
2014-02-12 03:25:18 PM

The Name: redmid17: It's often hard to tell the difference between stupid/ignorance posts and sarcasm.

Wait a minute . . . so I say something that, taken without sarcasm, would have supported your argument, i.e. that that post did not get any replies because it was a troll, with the implication that people on Fark tend to ignore trolls; however, taken WITH sarcasm, it would have been a retort not only supporting my argument (that, knowing Fark, this "troll" should have received some hits by now), but also would have been characteristic of the way I have replied to you throughout this thread and others --and you couldn't tell which one it was?

You lack the capacity to glean from context even the most superficial meanings of everyday statements, and I'M the stupid one?


Your Weeners I took as serious. The second one I took as sarcasm.

Not necessarily stupid, most likely ignorant.
 
2014-02-12 03:30:11 PM

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: It's often hard to tell the difference between stupid/ignorance posts and sarcasm.

Wait a minute . . . so I say something that, taken without sarcasm, would have supported your argument, i.e. that that post did not get any replies because it was a troll, with the implication that people on Fark tend to ignore trolls; however, taken WITH sarcasm, it would have been a retort not only supporting my argument (that, knowing Fark, this "troll" should have received some hits by now), but also would have been characteristic of the way I have replied to you throughout this thread and others --and you couldn't tell which one it was?

You lack the capacity to glean from context even the most superficial meanings of everyday statements, and I'M the stupid one?

Your Weeners I took as serious. The second one I took as sarcasm.

Not necessarily stupid, most likely ignorant.


And your point was . . .?  That I was pointing out that this "troll" hadn't gotten any replies, and this was ironic because that very post was a reply to that "troll"?  Is that the earth-shattering, monumentally mind-blowing insight into the nature of reality that you were trying to make?
 
2014-02-12 03:37:08 PM

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: It's often hard to tell the difference between stupid/ignorance posts and sarcasm.

Wait a minute . . . so I say something that, taken without sarcasm, would have supported your argument, i.e. that that post did not get any replies because it was a troll, with the implication that people on Fark tend to ignore trolls; however, taken WITH sarcasm, it would have been a retort not only supporting my argument (that, knowing Fark, this "troll" should have received some hits by now), but also would have been characteristic of the way I have replied to you throughout this thread and others --and you couldn't tell which one it was?

You lack the capacity to glean from context even the most superficial meanings of everyday statements, and I'M the stupid one?

Your Weeners I took as serious. The second one I took as sarcasm.

Not necessarily stupid, most likely ignorant.


As well you should. Serious weeners are serious. Anyone who hangs out in very many gun threads knows this well.
 
2014-02-12 03:40:13 PM
NO.

If you are working with a weapon, YOU MUST TRAIN IN ITS USE, or you are a danger to EVERYONE AROUND YOU. This is not negotiable. If you want to have a weapon around other people, you MAY NOT POSE A DANGER TO THOSE AROUND YOU.
 
2014-02-12 03:45:57 PM

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: It's often hard to tell the difference between stupid/ignorance posts and sarcasm.

Wait a minute . . . so I say something that, taken without sarcasm, would have supported your argument, i.e. that that post did not get any replies because it was a troll, with the implication that people on Fark tend to ignore trolls; however, taken WITH sarcasm, it would have been a retort not only supporting my argument (that, knowing Fark, this "troll" should have received some hits by now), but also would have been characteristic of the way I have replied to you throughout this thread and others --and you couldn't tell which one it was?

You lack the capacity to glean from context even the most superficial meanings of everyday statements, and I'M the stupid one?

Your Weeners I took as serious. The second one I took as sarcasm.

Not necessarily stupid, most likely ignorant.

And your point was . . .?  That I was pointing out that this "troll" hadn't gotten any replies, and this was ironic because that very post was a reply to that "troll"?  Is that the earth-shattering, monumentally mind-blowing insight into the nature of reality that you were trying to make?


If I thought your Weeners was serious, that would make you look less than intelligent. Your "sarcasm" was right in line with your uninformed posting on gun insurance, so you'll just have to accept my sincerest apology that I didn't read your mind on something I clearly identified as trolling.
 
2014-02-12 04:03:00 PM

Isitoveryet: what about ninja stars & nunchaku?
are those legal to carry in SC?

shouldnt' there be a nonlethal alternative for citizens who would rather show off their wicked martial arts talents?


I would definitely want to be able to walk around town, enter bars and restaurants and the like while wearing a scabbard holding a nice cavalry saber. At least it makes the man look more polished and debonair.
 
2014-02-12 04:03:40 PM

Saiga410: justtray: Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.

Is there a state that prevents businesses from disallowing firearms from  the premises?


Many states (California and Washington are two) say that signs regarding the prohibition of carrying concealed weapons by licensed holders carry no weight of law (i.e. you can't be arrested for having the firearm if otherwise licensed), but you can be arrested for trespassing if asked to leave by the shopkeeper and you refuse.
 
2014-02-12 04:05:16 PM

dericwater: I would definitely want to be able to walk around town, enter bars and restaurants and the like while wearing a scabbard holding a nice cavalry saber. At least it makes the man look more polished and debonair.


the supreme court actually ruled against laws allowing this in 1988 after yokels across the nation ordered steaks at applebees just to declare "that's not a knife" at their waiter
 
2014-02-12 04:07:04 PM
www.blogcdn.com

Well aren't you special.
 
2014-02-12 04:20:10 PM

sprawl15: dericwater: I would definitely want to be able to walk around town, enter bars and restaurants and the like while wearing a scabbard holding a nice cavalry saber. At least it makes the man look more polished and debonair.

the supreme court actually ruled against laws allowing this in 1988 after yokels across the nation ordered steaks at applebees just to declare "that's not a knife" at their waiter


Are you saying that "arms" only refer to guns and gun-like weapons and not to weapons in general? Cavalry sabers were used in war, up to and including WWII (very ineffectively by then, to be sure). If they disallow swords but allow guns, I would think someone would raise a big stink.
 
2014-02-12 04:20:53 PM

Magorn: guns kill and injure people in accidents and accidental discharges at a rate FAR higher than the rate they are used in self defense



If only this were remotely true.
 
2014-02-12 04:25:19 PM

dericwater: sprawl15: dericwater: I would definitely want to be able to walk around town, enter bars and restaurants and the like while wearing a scabbard holding a nice cavalry saber. At least it makes the man look more polished and debonair.

the supreme court actually ruled against laws allowing this in 1988 after yokels across the nation ordered steaks at applebees just to declare "that's not a knife" at their waiter

Are you saying that "arms" only refer to guns and gun-like weapons and not to weapons in general? Cavalry sabers were used in war, up to and including WWII (very ineffectively by then, to be sure). If they disallow swords but allow guns, I would think someone would raise a big stink.


Well historically I'm pretty sure both are considered arms, but you also have to concealed carry vs open carry. Many states do not allow open carry outside of hunting season, and I've yet to find a way to conceal a 4 ft long saber and it be usable.
 
2014-02-12 04:33:51 PM

Cataholic: Magorn: guns kill and injure people in accidents and accidental discharges at a rate FAR higher than the rate they are used in self defense


If only this were remotely true.


Guns are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide 
attempts. For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally 
justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, 
and 11 attempted or completed suicides
Kellermann, A. L., "Injuries and Deaths due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, 45:2 (1998):263-67 

note this is the 1998 study, not the 1993 one that NRA folks like to dismiss as "flawed"
 
2014-02-12 04:38:14 PM

HK-MP5-SD: Masso: Of course, let people carry guns into the bar, provided that they don't drink.

Gun crazed people that want to drink will eagerly leave the gun behind and most likely to get drunk will behave very rationale and responbisbly.

The other option is the equivalent of banning anyone from driving a car to a bar because some people will drink and drive.  You criminalize the behavior you want to end, not one possible intermediate step that may lead to that behavior.  Banning people from carrying at bars will do nothing to stop Billy-Bob from strapping on a gun and getting shiat faced at his buddy's house then wandering around town.  As long as the level of intoxication in the law is reasonable, possibly the same as for a DUI charge, I would think that a carrying a firearm while intoxicated law would be fairly easy to pass.


Let's play a game:
A. Ford Focus
B. Jeep CJ-7
C. M1911
D. Volkswagen Jetta

Which of these
1) does not require a license and insurance for use in Arizona
2) is designed specifically to kill people
3) is asinine to have in public outside a combat zone, job requirement, or direct, specific threat to your person
?

Well?

Hint: This is Fark.
 
2014-02-12 04:38:53 PM

Magorn: Cataholic: Magorn: guns kill and injure people in accidents and accidental discharges at a rate FAR higher than the rate they are used in self defense


If only this were remotely true.

Guns are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide 
attempts. For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally 
justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, 
and 11 attempted or completed suicides
Kellermann, A. L., "Injuries and Deaths due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, 45:2 (1998):263-67 

note this is the 1998 study, not the 1993 one that NRA folks like to dismiss as "flawed"


Flawed isn't really the best word for it. Outright fabrication and blatant data manipulation is more like it. Pardon me if I prefer the CDC review of existing literature to something Kellerman wrote.
 
2014-02-12 04:39:43 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Which of these
1) does not require a license and insurance for use in Arizona
2) is designed specifically to kill people
3) is asinine to have in public outside a combat zone, job requirement, or direct, specific threat to your person
?

Well?


all of the above
 
2014-02-12 04:39:59 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: HK-MP5-SD: Masso: Of course, let people carry guns into the bar, provided that they don't drink.

Gun crazed people that want to drink will eagerly leave the gun behind and most likely to get drunk will behave very rationale and responbisbly.

The other option is the equivalent of banning anyone from driving a car to a bar because some people will drink and drive.  You criminalize the behavior you want to end, not one possible intermediate step that may lead to that behavior.  Banning people from carrying at bars will do nothing to stop Billy-Bob from strapping on a gun and getting shiat faced at his buddy's house then wandering around town.  As long as the level of intoxication in the law is reasonable, possibly the same as for a DUI charge, I would think that a carrying a firearm while intoxicated law would be fairly easy to pass.

Let's play a game:
A. Ford Focus
B. Jeep CJ-7
C. M1911
D. Volkswagen Jetta

Which of these
1) does not require a license and insurance for use in Arizona
2) is designed specifically to kill people
3) is asinine to have in public outside a combat zone, job requirement, or direct, specific threat to your person
?

Well?

Hint: This is Fark.


1) A, B, C, D
2) B
3) More of an opinion than a multiple-choice question
 
2014-02-12 04:42:11 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: 3) is asinine to have in public outside a combat zone, job requirement, or direct, specific threat to your person


add putting holes in paper at the range to that list please
 
2014-02-12 04:52:47 PM
asinine to have in public outside a combat zone, job requirement, or direct, specific threat to your person?

Dermal is predjudiced on the issue. He's former military and has openly stated that his fondest dream is to be recalled so he can stomp those he deems redneck secessionists. Of course he doesn't want them to have a 1911 to put his jackbootiness in danger.
 
2014-02-12 04:55:42 PM
At this point, gun threads on Fark are like groundhog's day.

Don't you guys get sick of arguing over the same dumb shiat all the time?
 
2014-02-12 04:57:39 PM

StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


0/10  No other location "trains for a possible massacre".  Look into the mirror to see why your child is afraid.
 
2014-02-12 05:01:03 PM
I knew a governor named Nikki
I guess u could say she was a gun fiend
I met her at an NRA meeting
Masturbating with AK-47 magazine
She said howd u like 2 waste some time
And I could not resist when I saw Gov. Nikki grind
 
2014-02-12 05:34:48 PM

PsiChick: NO.

If you are working with a weapon, YOU MUST TRAIN IN ITS USE, or you are a danger to EVERYONE AROUND YOU. This is not negotiable. If you want to have a weapon around other people, you MAY NOT POSE A DANGER TO THOSE AROUND YOU.


I'm glad the politics tab's resident ditz has chimed in
 
2014-02-12 05:44:08 PM

Frank N Stein: PsiChick: NO.

If you are working with a weapon, YOU MUST TRAIN IN ITS USE, or you are a danger to EVERYONE AROUND YOU. This is not negotiable. If you want to have a weapon around other people, you MAY NOT POSE A DANGER TO THOSE AROUND YOU.

I'm glad the politics tab's resident ditz has chimed in


Wait, are we doing the thing where we call names instead of making arguments now? Well, you're a poo-poo head!
 
2014-02-12 05:46:10 PM

The Name: StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.


Obvious troll is obvious.
Think of the children hysteria followed by a hysterical anecdote without context.
 
2014-02-12 05:57:00 PM

Luse: The Name: StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.

Obvious troll is obvious.
Think of the children hysteria followed by a hysterical anecdote without context.



Because the scenario has no basis in reality, amiright?
 
2014-02-12 06:01:47 PM

Lord_Baull: Luse: The Name: StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.

Obvious troll is obvious.
Think of the children hysteria followed by a hysterical anecdote without context.

Because the scenario has no basis in reality, amiright?


Less of a basis than teaching your kids what to do when lightning strikes them or they're in a train crash.
 
2014-02-12 06:07:26 PM
Maybe you just didn't know this is the new reality post-Newtown.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/lockdown-teaching-stude n ts-to-hide-from-guns-and-hide-their-fears/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0" >http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/lockdown-teaching-stud en ts-to-hide-from-guns-and-hide-their-fears/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


https://youthradio.org/news/article/heres-the-drill-inside-a-school- lo ckdown/
s3.amazonaws.com

In Oakland, Julia Gelormino has a "game" she plays with her first grade students. She calls it hide and seek. It starts with an announcement on the PA that Dr. Lock is in the building. She tells her students, "So that's our special code."

Next, all 21 kids in their uniforms head to the bathroom, and one by one they line up and squish inside the small room. On her cue, all her students crouch down on the floor and become silent. Well, almost all of them.

Gelormino's tone of voice becomes serious as she focuses on one chatty student. "I don't want to scare you, but Willie, if someone was trying to harm us, and you were making that much sound, guess where they would go first? Here. So right now you weren't helping us to be safe," she says.

These kids are used to drills. They're used to real lockdowns too. Gelormino says she never knows the reason until afterwards. It could be a robbery in the neighborhood, or something more serious. Since the shooting in Newtown, the lockdowns have meant some really hard conversations with her first graders.

"One my kids asked, what would happen if they shot through the door? So she had obviously watched the things on the news," she said.


This is the reality our kids live in. NOT YOUR REALITY THAT EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR HEAD. This is the reality of "guns everywhere". This is the reality where a gun nut massacres Kindergarteners in their classrooms. NOT YOUR REALITY THAT EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR HEAD.

...

You "people" should take a long, good look at yourselves.
 
2014-02-12 06:12:21 PM

StopLurkListen: Maybe you just didn't know this is the new reality post-Newtown.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/lockdown-teaching-stude n ts-to-hide-from-guns-and-hide-their-fears/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0" >http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/lockdown-teaching-stud en ts-to-hide-from-guns-and-hide-their-fears/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


https://youthradio.org/news/article/heres-the-drill-inside-a-school- lo ckdown/


In Oakland, Julia Gelormino has a "game" she plays with her first grade students. She calls it hide and seek. It starts with an announcement on the PA that Dr. Lock is in the building. She tells her students, "So that's our special code."

Next, all 21 kids in their uniforms head to the bathroom, and one by one they line up and squish inside the small room. On her cue, all her students crouch down on the floor and become silent. Well, almost all of them.

Gelormino's tone of voice becomes serious as she focuses on one chatty student. "I don't want to scare you, but Willie, if someone was trying to harm us, and you were making that much sound, guess where they would go first? Here. So right now you weren't helping us to be safe," she says.

These kids are used to drills. They're used to real lockdowns too. Gelormino says she never knows the reason until afterwards. It could be a robbery in the neighborhood, or something more serious. Since the shooting in Newtown, the lockdowns have meant some really hard conversations with her first graders.

"One my kids asked, what would happen if they shot through the door? So she had obviously watched the things on the news," she said.

This is the reality our kids live in. NOT YOUR REALITY THAT EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR HEAD. This is the reality of "guns everywhere". This is the reality where a gun nut massacres Kindergarteners in their classrooms. NOT YOUR REALITY THAT EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR HEAD.

...

You "people" should take a long, good look at yourselves.


Your hysteria is what is causing your kid nightmares. Try to spend a little less time on mommy blogs.
 
2014-02-12 06:20:04 PM

Luse: StopLurkListen: Maybe you just didn't know this is the new reality post-Newtown.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/lockdown-teaching-stude n ts-to-hide-from-guns-and-hide-their-fears/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0" >http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/lockdown-teaching-stud en ts-to-hide-from-guns-and-hide-their-fears/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


https://youthradio.org/news/article/heres-the-drill-inside-a-school- lo ckdown/


In Oakland, Julia Gelormino has a "game" she plays with her first grade students. She calls it hide and seek. It starts with an announcement on the PA that Dr. Lock is in the building. She tells her students, "So that's our special code."

Next, all 21 kids in their uniforms head to the bathroom, and one by one they line up and squish inside the small room. On her cue, all her students crouch down on the floor and become silent. Well, almost all of them.

Gelormino's tone of voice becomes serious as she focuses on one chatty student. "I don't want to scare you, but Willie, if someone was trying to harm us, and you were making that much sound, guess where they would go first? Here. So right now you weren't helping us to be safe," she says.

These kids are used to drills. They're used to real lockdowns too. Gelormino says she never knows the reason until afterwards. It could be a robbery in the neighborhood, or something more serious. Since the shooting in Newtown, the lockdowns have meant some really hard conversations with her first graders.

"One my kids asked, what would happen if they shot through the door? So she had obviously watched the things on the news," she said.

This is the reality our kids live in. NOT YOUR REALITY THAT EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR HEAD. This is the reality of "guns everywhere". This is the reality where a gun nut massacres Kindergarteners in their classrooms. NOT YOUR REALITY THAT EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR HEAD.

...

You "people" should take a long, good look at yourselves.

Your hysteria is what is cau ...


Go to hell. I came home to this. Go directly to hell.
 
2014-02-12 06:22:35 PM

Luse: Your hysteria is what is causing your kid nightmares. Try to spend a little less time on mommy blogs.


redmid17: Less of a basis than teaching your kids what to do when lightning strikes them or they're in a train crash.



That's it!  Teach that parent of a scared child a lesson!  Show everyone who's REALLY the asshole in this thread!
 
2014-02-12 06:32:53 PM

Luse: The Name: StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.

Obvious troll is obvious.
Think of the children hysteria followed by a hysterical anecdote without context.


Whatever side of an argument 'Luse' is on, I'll take the other.

This guy defended bikers that rode around NYC in blatant disregard for human life, then chased and beat a man basically to death after harrassing him and forcing him off the road.

Real classy guy.
 
2014-02-12 06:42:36 PM

justtray: Luse: The Name: StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.

Obvious troll is obvious.
Think of the children hysteria followed by a hysterical anecdote without context.

Whatever side of an argument 'Luse' is on, I'll take the other.

This guy defended bikers that rode around NYC in blatant disregard for human life, then chased and beat a man basically to death after harrassing him and forcing him off the road.

Real classy guy.


Perhaps you'd care to post a few quotes proving your assertion. You couldn't last time.

You stand with mental giants with your "If he's for it then I'm against it!" approach.
 
2014-02-12 06:45:12 PM

Luse: Perhaps you'd care to post a few quotes proving your assertion.


No need to, now that we have your response to StopLurkListen, which I look forward to using in future gun threads.
 
2014-02-12 06:50:03 PM

The Name: Luse: Perhaps you'd care to post a few quotes proving your assertion.

No need to, now that we have your response to StopLurkListen, which I look forward to using in future gun threads.


Gee, I was mean to an obvious troll. You may want to check my profile.
 
2014-02-12 07:00:51 PM

The Name: Luse: Your hysteria is what is causing your kid nightmares. Try to spend a little less time on mommy blogs.

redmid17: Less of a basis than teaching your kids what to do when lightning strikes them or they're in a train crash.


That's it!  Teach that parent of a scared child a lesson!  Show everyone who's REALLY the asshole in this thread!


These kinds of drills and lectures have been going on for more than 30 years.
 
2014-02-12 07:07:01 PM

StopLurkListen: Luse: StopLurkListen: Maybe you just didn't know this is the new reality post-Newtown.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/lockdown-teaching-stude n ts-to-hide-from-guns-and-hide-their-fears/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0" >http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/lockdown-teaching-stud en ts-to-hide-from-guns-and-hide-their-fears/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


https://youthradio.org/news/article/heres-the-drill-inside-a-school- lo ckdown/


In Oakland, Julia Gelormino has a "game" she plays with her first grade students. She calls it hide and seek. It starts with an announcement on the PA that Dr. Lock is in the building. She tells her students, "So that's our special code."

Next, all 21 kids in their uniforms head to the bathroom, and one by one they line up and squish inside the small room. On her cue, all her students crouch down on the floor and become silent. Well, almost all of them.

Gelormino's tone of voice becomes serious as she focuses on one chatty student. "I don't want to scare you, but Willie, if someone was trying to harm us, and you were making that much sound, guess where they would go first? Here. So right now you weren't helping us to be safe," she says.

These kids are used to drills. They're used to real lockdowns too. Gelormino says she never knows the reason until afterwards. It could be a robbery in the neighborhood, or something more serious. Since the shooting in Newtown, the lockdowns have meant some really hard conversations with her first graders.

"One my kids asked, what would happen if they shot through the door? So she had obviously watched the things on the news," she said.

This is the reality our kids live in. NOT YOUR REALITY THAT EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR HEAD. This is the reality of "guns everywhere". This is the reality where a gun nut massacres Kindergarteners in their classrooms. NOT YOUR REALITY THAT EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR HEAD.

...

You "people" should take a long, good look at yourselves.

Your hysteria is what ...


Holy fark!  You people are insane.
 
2014-02-12 07:14:09 PM

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: If there were any kind of feasibility or merit to the measure, one would think that it wold have been applied to hunting licenses long ago.

Yeah, because it's not like gun enthusiasts actually lobby to prevent gun control or anything.

If you actually knew anything about the NRA prior to the late 1970s, this would be a good time to show it. However if you don't or won't take 30 seconds to google it, keep digging yourself deeper. It is amusing and my afternoon is going slowly.

The 70s ended 44 years ago, dude.


You make me sad. : ^ (
 
2014-02-12 07:25:10 PM

Luse: Perhaps you'd care to post a few quotes proving your assertion. You couldn't last time.


Really? Are you kidding me?

Look at your posts.

The bikers were never a threat to his family. We have proof of this. Even after he pissed them off by plowing over their friends they still did no harm to his family. They beat his ass, as was deserved at that point, but his family was fine. Suburbanite shriveled dick trying to justify his roadrage as protecting his family

Fark you, you asshole. I hope you die.
 
2014-02-12 07:26:45 PM

Magorn: Cataholic: Magorn: guns kill and injure people in accidents and accidental discharges at a rate FAR higher than the rate they are used in self defense


If only this were remotely true.

Guns are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide
attempts. For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally
justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides,
and 11 attempted or completed suicides
Kellermann, A. L., "Injuries and Deaths due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, 45:2 (1998):263-67

note this is the 1998 study, not the 1993 one that NRA folks like to dismiss as "flawed"


Even the most conservative estimates put defensive use of a firearm at 100,000 incidents per year.  That is pretty darn close to the total number of people who are shot in the US every year (including intentional shootings and suicides).  So, I'm sure you have a statistic somewhere showing 100,000 people were accidentally shot last year?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use- gu ns-in-self-defense
 
2014-02-12 07:27:10 PM

Luse: justtray: Luse: The Name: StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.

Obvious troll is obvious.
Think of the children hysteria followed by a hysterical anecdote without context.

Whatever side of an argument 'Luse' is on, I'll take the other.

This guy defended bikers that rode around NYC in blatant disregard for human life, then chased and beat a man basically to death after harrassing him and forcing him off the road.

Real classy guy.

Perhaps you'd care to post a few quotes proving your assertion. You couldn't last time.

You stand with mental giants with your "If he's for it then I'm against it!" approach.


Maybe this thread:  http://www.fark.com/comments/7962521/If-you-guessed-5-off-duty-NYC-co p s-were-involved-in-that-SUV-motorcycle-incident-come-up-to-claim-your- prize 
 
2014-02-12 07:55:25 PM

redmid17: The Name: Luse: Your hysteria is what is causing your kid nightmares. Try to spend a little less time on mommy blogs.

redmid17: Less of a basis than teaching your kids what to do when lightning strikes them or they're in a train crash.


That's it!  Teach that parent of a scared child a lesson!  Show everyone who's REALLY the asshole in this thread!

These kinds of drills and lectures have been going on for more than 30 years.


So?
 
2014-02-12 07:59:43 PM

The Name: redmid17: The Name: Luse: Your hysteria is what is causing your kid nightmares. Try to spend a little less time on mommy blogs.

redmid17: Less of a basis than teaching your kids what to do when lightning strikes them or they're in a train crash.


That's it!  Teach that parent of a scared child a lesson!  Show everyone who's REALLY the asshole in this thread!

These kinds of drills and lectures have been going on for more than 30 years.

So?


She was acting like this is some new kind of thing that happened solely because of Newtown. It's not. My schools had monthly practice lockdowns after Columbine and Pearl. Her issue shouldn't be with the concept of guns. It should be with the school for fear mongering. Her child is much more likely to die from a pool, a crash, or any other number circumstances.
 
2014-02-12 08:02:17 PM

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: The Name: Luse: Your hysteria is what is causing your kid nightmares. Try to spend a little less time on mommy blogs.

redmid17: Less of a basis than teaching your kids what to do when lightning strikes them or they're in a train crash.


That's it!  Teach that parent of a scared child a lesson!  Show everyone who's REALLY the asshole in this thread!

These kinds of drills and lectures have been going on for more than 30 years.

So?

She was acting like this is some new kind of thing that happened solely because of Newtown. It's not. My schools had monthly practice lockdowns after Columbine and Pearl.


Who cares if it isn't new?  What difference does that make?
 
2014-02-12 08:03:54 PM

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: The Name: Luse: Your hysteria is what is causing your kid nightmares. Try to spend a little less time on mommy blogs.

redmid17: Less of a basis than teaching your kids what to do when lightning strikes them or they're in a train crash.


That's it!  Teach that parent of a scared child a lesson!  Show everyone who's REALLY the asshole in this thread!

These kinds of drills and lectures have been going on for more than 30 years.

So?

She was acting like this is some new kind of thing that happened solely because of Newtown. It's not. My schools had monthly practice lockdowns after Columbine and Pearl.

Who cares if it isn't new?  What difference does that make?


Think about it for a minute and feel free not to cut my posts short. Maybe you can do that after you explain the rationality of gun and hunting insurance.
 
2014-02-12 08:09:17 PM

redmid17: Think about it for a minute


No, tell me.  Tell me how a thirty-year tradition of school shootings is supposed to be more comforting than a recent upsurge in school shootings.
 
2014-02-12 08:10:33 PM
Still trying real hard to make us a third world country.
 
2014-02-12 08:15:16 PM

The Name: redmid17: Think about it for a minute

No, tell me.  Tell me how a thirty-year tradition of school shootings is supposed to be more comforting than a recent upsurge in school shootings.


Nah every time I try to explain something to you, you just drop the entire conversation. I want to make sure you're learning something from a blatant troll account who's worrying for the children.
 
2014-02-12 08:17:30 PM

justtray: Luse: Perhaps you'd care to post a few quotes proving your assertion. You couldn't last time.

Really? Are you kidding me?

Look at your posts.

The bikers were never a threat to his family. We have proof of this. Even after he pissed them off by plowing over their friends they still did no harm to his family. They beat his ass, as was deserved at that point, but his family was fine. Suburbanite shriveled dick trying to justify his roadrage as protecting his family

Fark you, you asshole. I hope you die.


Classy.
 
Your quote does not show me defending anyone. That was the factual, chronological sequence of events. You and others were hoping for more death and carnage, because hating bikes is very in vogue on Fark. I called them douchebags multiple times, I simply refused to white knight the driver.


On the other hand here's what you had to say in the same conversation.

 Yes, he should have gotten more of them. The ones that followed him and forced him to stop again after the fact also should have been killed. If it was me, I would have been running them off the road as they tried.

Nice Mad Max fantasy you have there.  There is a word for people like you. Sociopath.  You seem to want alot of people dead or suffering. The fact that your cognitive dissonance is so strong that you actually believe you have the moral high ground is more sad than anything.

If there is an argument that can sway me towards more gun control, it's that people like you exist. I don't wish you death or harm. I just wish you get the professional help you so desperately need.
 
2014-02-12 08:21:35 PM

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Think about it for a minute

No, tell me.  Tell me how a thirty-year tradition of school shootings is supposed to be more comforting than a recent upsurge in school shootings.

Nah every time I try to explain something to you, you just drop the entire conversation. I want to make sure you're learning something from a blatant troll account who's worrying for the children.



Yeah, that's what I thought.  Fark off, dimwit.
 
2014-02-12 08:25:41 PM

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Think about it for a minute

No, tell me.  Tell me how a thirty-year tradition of school shootings is supposed to be more comforting than a recent upsurge in school shootings.

Nah every time I try to explain something to you, you just drop the entire conversation. I want to make sure you're learning something from a blatant troll account who's worrying for the children.


Yeah, that's what I thought.  Fark off, dimwit.


Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.
 
2014-02-12 08:32:14 PM

redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.


Oh, the thing about the NRA being a lobby for neo-Confederate militia nuts for ONLY the past 45 years or so?  Yeah, that's the most dumbass reason I have ever heard for opposing a policy.  The fact that people 45 years ago did not entertain a certain idea is not a reason in and of itself to not consider it today.
 
2014-02-12 08:37:01 PM

The Name: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Oh, the thing about the NRA being a lobby for neo-Confederate militia nuts for ONLY the past 45 years or so?  Yeah, that's the most dumbass reason I have ever heard for opposing a policy.  The fact that people 45 years ago did not entertain a certain idea is not a reason in and of itself to not consider it today.


Dude, slow down, those goal posts are moving so fast I can barely see'em!
 
2014-02-12 08:44:27 PM

The Name: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Oh, the thing about the NRA being a lobby for neo-Confederate militia nuts for ONLY the past 45 years or so?  Yeah, that's the most dumbass reason I have ever heard for opposing a policy.  The fact that people 45 years ago did not entertain a certain idea is not a reason in and of itself to not consider it today.


So you don't understand the history or the context. You're also repeating yourself from earlier. Try again
 
2014-02-12 08:48:59 PM

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Oh, the thing about the NRA being a lobby for neo-Confederate militia nuts for ONLY the past 45 years or so?  Yeah, that's the most dumbass reason I have ever heard for opposing a policy.  The fact that people 45 years ago did not entertain a certain idea is not a reason in and of itself to not consider it today.

So you don't understand the history or the context. You're also repeating yourself from earlier. Try again


Nope.  Ball's in your court, dude.  You asked for a response, not a history dissertation defense, and I responded.  That's what I think about it, well-informed or not.

Now it's your turn to tell me why someone should be less upset about 30 years' worth of shootings and subsequent drills than about a recent rise in shootings and drills.
 
2014-02-12 08:52:47 PM
Well, that "won't someone think of the children!" troll certainly took awhile, but did take root.  lol
 
2014-02-12 08:59:29 PM

Farker Soze: Well, that "won't someone think of the children!" troll certainly took awhile, but did take root.  lol


Not really. This is the second or third thread justtray hijacked to try to misrepresent what I said in the biker thread. It seems I've really struck a nerve. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be able to let it go. Slightly disconcerting when you realize that he seems to be obsessed with me as well as a sociopath. We already know he's got a Mad Max fantasy, I just hope his fantasies don't extend to Dexter, and if they do I really hope he follows the code to a t as I haven't killed anyone.
 
2014-02-12 09:05:58 PM
My penis is very very very tiny.

I need to carry a large gun when I go to a bar.

/very very verrrrrrry tiny
//bigass rubber balls on my truck though
 
2014-02-12 09:08:56 PM

Kibbler: My penis is very very very tiny.

I need to carry a large gun when I go to a bar.

/very very verrrrrrry tiny
//bigass rubber balls on my truck though


It's your bedtime honey, the grownups are trying to talk.
 
2014-02-12 09:16:31 PM

Luse: Farker Soze: Well, that "won't someone think of the children!" troll certainly took awhile, but did take root.  lol

Not really. This is the second or third thread justtray hijacked to try to misrepresent what I said in the biker thread. It seems I've really struck a nerve. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be able to let it go. Slightly disconcerting when you realize that he seems to be obsessed with me as well as a sociopath. We already know he's got a Mad Max fantasy, I just hope his fantasies don't extend to Dexter, and if they do I really hope he follows the code to a t as I haven't killed anyone.


No way.  He hates violence so much he vehemently wishes for your death.  It makes sense to me.
 
2014-02-12 09:42:45 PM

Farker Soze: Luse: Farker Soze: Well, that "won't someone think of the children!" troll certainly took awhile, but did take root.  lol

Not really. This is the second or third thread justtray hijacked to try to misrepresent what I said in the biker thread. It seems I've really struck a nerve. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be able to let it go. Slightly disconcerting when you realize that he seems to be obsessed with me as well as a sociopath. We already know he's got a Mad Max fantasy, I just hope his fantasies don't extend to Dexter, and if they do I really hope he follows the code to a t as I haven't killed anyone.

No way.  He hates violence so much he vehemently wishes for your death.  It makes sense to me.


LOL. So essentially it's like StopLurkListen hoping for her magic sky wizard to sentence me to eternal suffering. I love how these "good" and "civilized" people can't wait for something horrible to happen to others who just happen to disagree with them.
 
2014-02-12 09:48:23 PM

redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.


Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?
 
2014-02-12 09:54:34 PM

DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?


On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.
 
2014-02-12 10:06:19 PM

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Oh, the thing about the NRA being a lobby for neo-Confederate militia nuts for ONLY the past 45 years or so?  Yeah, that's the most dumbass reason I have ever heard for opposing a policy.  The fact that people 45 years ago did not entertain a certain idea is not a reason in and of itself to not consider it today.

So you don't understand the history or the context. You're also repeating yourself from earlier. Try again

Nope.  Ball's in your court, dude.  You asked for a response, not a history dissertation defense, and I responded.  That's what I think about it, well-informed or not.

Now it's your turn to tell me why someone should be less upset about 30 years' worth of shootings and subsequent drills than about a recent rise in shootings and drills.


You didn't actually respond to the explanation. You repeated your ignorant answer from a question I asked you earlier.
 
2014-02-12 10:13:54 PM
Fark people

I need help.  My gun must be broken.  It has never killed anyone.  Do warranties usually cover this defect?  In fact, the only damage it has ever done is to those evil paper targets.  It's almost like my gun was "designed" to poke holes in innocent paper targets.

Could someone recommend a gun that kills people right out of the box?  I might need to upgrade.
 
2014-02-12 10:20:14 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Fark people

I need help.  My gun must be broken.  It has never killed anyone.  Do warranties usually cover this defect?  In fact, the only damage it has ever done is to those evil paper targets.  It's almost like my gun was "designed" to poke holes in innocent paper targets.

Could someone recommend a gun that kills people right out of the box?  I might need to upgrade.


How have you been holding it? Some say that holding it perpendicular to the ground is correct. That's bullshiat. You want to hold it sideways. You look good and you'll be more accurate.
 
2014-02-12 10:22:09 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: HK-MP5-SD: Masso: Of course, let people carry guns into the bar, provided that they don't drink.

Gun crazed people that want to drink will eagerly leave the gun behind and most likely to get drunk will behave very rationale and responbisbly.

The other option is the equivalent of banning anyone from driving a car to a bar because some people will drink and drive.  You criminalize the behavior you want to end, not one possible intermediate step that may lead to that behavior.  Banning people from carrying at bars will do nothing to stop Billy-Bob from strapping on a gun and getting shiat faced at his buddy's house then wandering around town.  As long as the level of intoxication in the law is reasonable, possibly the same as for a DUI charge, I would think that a carrying a firearm while intoxicated law would be fairly easy to pass.

Let's play a game:
A. Ford Focus
B. Jeep CJ-7
C. M1911
D. Volkswagen Jetta

Which of these
1) does not require a license and insurance for use in Arizona
2) is designed specifically to kill people
3) is asinine to have in public outside a combat zone, job requirement, or direct, specific threat to your person
?

Well?

Hint: This is Fark.


You see, This is why no progress will ever be made in gun control.  I am a gun owner. I state that under current law people may be able to legally carry a firearm when intoxicated and I don't think that is good.  I propose that we should pass a law making that illegal.  But, even though I am fairly sure that you don't support drunk people carrying guns legally, Your response isn't "yeah, I agree, that isn't good, we should make it illegal".  Your response is "All guns are evil, they have no place outside of soldiers in combat"

In answer to your questions....
1) None of them require licenses or insurance as long as they stay on private policy.  Only the 1911 requires a background investigation before you purchase it to ensure that you are legally allowed to use it before purchase.
2) Only the 1911 was specifically designed to kill, of course the other 3 do a pretty good job of killing people on occasion, even though that wasn't what they were designed to do.  Being designed to kill is not a bad thing. There exist in this world a small but not inconsiderable number of people who are in need of killing.  If you encounter one of them it is useful to have a tool designed to kill.
3) I don't think any of them are asinine to have outside a combat zone, but even if you do, you have to admit that non-combat zones can become combat zones with no warning whatsoever.  In the last month, a shopping mall close to my home, the parking lot across the street from my job, a small business close to my home, and a number of homes and street in the area all became combat zones with no warning to anyone involved.

I don't think "job requirement" is a good reason to carry a gun.  "Job requirement" just means because your employer says so.   My employer is an idiot.  If he were to tell me that I needed to carry a gun at work, I would tell him that I fix computers and I don't think a gun would be very useful to me and besides our building has its own armed and sworn police force with full police powers.

As far as direct, specific threats..... despite what you see on Lifetime movies, they basically don't happen.  Very few people are dumb enough to threaten to kill a person before they do it.  Doing so often causes inconvenient interviews with police officers before you can accomplish your goal or a swift trip to prison after.
 
2014-02-12 10:46:28 PM

redmid17: SCUBA_Archer: Fark people

I need help.  My gun must be broken.  It has never killed anyone.  Do warranties usually cover this defect?  In fact, the only damage it has ever done is to those evil paper targets.  It's almost like my gun was "designed" to poke holes in innocent paper targets.

Could someone recommend a gun that kills people right out of the box?  I might need to upgrade.

How have you been holding it? Some say that holding it perpendicular to the ground is correct. That's bullshiat. You want to hold it sideways. You look good and you'll be more accurate.


This is all true. Another point to consider is what kind of ammo are you using? If you've been using STEELHAWK rounds you may have a problem.
 
2014-02-12 11:00:15 PM

Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.


Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.
 
2014-02-12 11:06:14 PM

DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.


Maybe not all but we can talk. But surely that would mean reciprocity for my CC would be implemented in all jurisdictions, with CC in virtually all establishments?
 
2014-02-12 11:34:52 PM

DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.


I'm not.
 
2014-02-12 11:36:50 PM

Luse: DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.

Maybe not all but we can talk. But surely that would mean reciprocity for my CC would be implemented in all jurisdictions, with CC in virtually all establishments?


Would that be a logical consequence of the insurance thing, or is this a "you owe me something for implementing sensible policy" thing?  If it's the latter, then fark off.  You gun nuts are the only people who think they deserve special compensation every time a law causes the slightest inconvenience to them.
 
2014-02-12 11:44:59 PM
What exactly would the insurance cover?  Don't most insurances exclude coverage for damage caused by criminal activity?  Or is this some back-door gun grabber justification to further restrain gun ownership when no sane insurance company is willing to offer policies to cover the onerous requirements laid down by the legislators.
 
2014-02-12 11:50:33 PM
The Name:

Would that be a logical consequence of the insurance thing, or is this a "you owe me something for implementing sensible policy" thing?  If it's the latter, then fark off.  You gun nuts are the only people who think they deserve special compensation every time a law causes the slightest inconvenience to them.


Because gun owners have a history of receiving concessions for every stupid gun bill passed in this country.  It's been nothing but how can we take your rights away since 1934.  Enough is enough.  This is why we've reached a tipping point with gun laws in this country.  Decades of pushing stupid laws with zero impact on those willing to break them, but huge impacts on the law abiding has resulted in an environment where even kids killed in their classroom isn't enough justification for further gun laws.
 
2014-02-12 11:55:42 PM

The Name: Would that be a logical consequence of the insurance thing


That would be an argument in favor of it, but not necessarily a logical consequence. If we're going by the car analogy, you can still be told where you can and can't drive or park, such as down a bike path, on the sidewalk, etc. and would/should apply to guns in the same way for certain things that such-and-such jurisdiction deems appropriate.
And CC being recognized in all jurisdiction would get more traction without insanity like Haley is pushing. Using cars, again, it would be like the state handing out a driver's license to anyone who wanted one regardless of ability. What state would want to deal with SC drivers if the only requirements for a license were a pulse, a felony check, and a brief instruction on which button on the floor is stop and which is go.
 
2014-02-13 12:00:09 AM

HK-MP5-SD: You see, This is why no progress will ever be made in gun control.  I am a gun owner. I state that under current law people may be able to legally carry a firearm when intoxicated and I don't think that is good.  I propose that we should pass a law making that illegal.  But, even though I am fairly sure that you don't support drunk people carrying guns legally, Your response isn't "yeah, I agree, that isn't good, we should make it illegal".   Your response is "All guns are evil, they have no place outside of soldiers in combat"


Bullshiat.

HK-MP5-SD: In answer to your questions....
1) None of them require licenses or insurance as long as they stay on private policy.  Only the 1911 requires a background investigation before you purchase it to ensure that you are legally allowed to use it before purchase.


Use in public: What you do out of maximum range is your bidness as long as you're not harming anybody.
And what does it take to buy a car, even with cash? Buying an M 1911 does not require regular registration, insurance, and a license to operate.

 

HK-MP5-SD: 2) Only the 1911 was specifically designed to kill, of course the other 3 do a pretty good job of killing people on occasion, even though that wasn't what they were designed to do.  Being designed to kill is not a bad thing. There exist in this world a small but not inconsiderable number of people who are in need of killing.  If you encounter one of them it is useful to have a tool designed to kill.


I'm fairly certain that it's illegal to appoint yourself judge, jury, and executioner outside Florida.

HK-MP5-SD: 3) I don't think any of them are asinine to have outside a combat zone, but even if you do, you have to admit that non-combat zones can become combat zones with no warning whatsoever.  In the last month, a shopping mall close to my home, the parking lot across the street from my job, a small business close to my home, and a number of homes and street in the area all became combat zones with no warning to anyone involved.


Only your first three words are correct. No, your street did not become a combat zone, and you did not magically become a trained soldier operating under clearly-defined RoE. More idiots walking around with loaded firearms will not make your neighborhood magically safer from other idiots walking around with loaded firearms.

HK-MP5-SD: I don't think "job requirement" is a good reason to carry a gun.  "Job requirement" just means because your employer says so.   My employer is an idiot.  If he were to tell me that I needed to carry a gun at work, I would tell him that I fix computers and I don't think a gun would be very useful to me and besides our building has its own armed and sworn police force with full police powers.


What would lead you to believe that I would propose  "job requirements" as something ridiculously arbitrary? Are you just looking to pound on Scarecrow from Oz?

HK-MP5-SD: As far as direct, specific threats..... despite what you see on Lifetime movies, they basically don't happen.  Very few people are dumb enough to threaten to kill a person before they do it.  Doing so often causes inconvenient interviews with police officers before you can accomplish your goal or a swift trip to prison after.


And Ted Nugent is in prison. Direct, personal threat, as opposed to afraid of non melanin-disadvantaged people.
 
2014-02-13 12:03:12 AM

SCUBA_Archer: What exactly would the insurance cover?  Don't most insurances exclude coverage for damage caused by criminal activity?  Or is this some back-door gun grabber justification to further restrain gun ownership when no sane insurance company is willing to offer policies to cover the onerous requirements laid down by the legislators.


Let me guess: You have having to buy car insurance that meets state minimum standards, too. Onerous is a great loaded term.
 
2014-02-13 12:04:14 AM

SCUBA_Archer: Because gun owners have a history of receiving concessions for every stupid gun bill passed in this country.


Just out of curiosity, is there any gun restriction you would favor, either for safety or convenience? Imagine if there were no gun laws whatsoever, what would, if any, limits would you consider to be in the best interests of the gun-owning and non-gun-owning public?
 
2014-02-13 01:05:54 AM

The Name: Luse: DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.

Maybe not all but we can talk. But surely that would mean reciprocity for my CC would be implemented in all jurisdictions, with CC in virtually all establishments?

Would that be a logical consequence of the insurance thing, or is this a "you owe me something for implementing sensible policy" thing?  If it's the latter, then fark off.  You gun nuts are the only people who think they deserve special compensation every time a law causes the slightest inconvenience to them.


See, this is why nobody wants to talk to you. As soon as we even try to reason and give an inch you go full derp, refuse to concede anything and go for the throat. The log I dropped in the toilet earlier today had more of a concept of negotiation than you do. I will take your words with appropriate gravity.

Good Day Sir!
 
2014-02-13 01:14:09 AM

redmid17: DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.

I'm not.


You're not what? Not going to explain why your comment about car insurance and license requirements wasn't disingenuous? Because not that long ago, you seemed anxious to have your thoughts on the matter of insurance addressed by someone.
 
2014-02-13 01:25:08 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: SCUBA_Archer: Because gun owners have a history of receiving concessions for every stupid gun bill passed in this country.

Just out of curiosity, is there any gun restriction you would favor, either for safety or convenience? Imagine if there were no gun laws whatsoever, what would, if any, limits would you consider to be in the best interests of the gun-owning and non-gun-owning public?


Felons shouldn't be allowed to own guns, however gun rights may be petitioned to be restored after sufficient rehabilitation period (repeal Lautenberg Amendment).  Law abiding citizens should be able to purchase any handgun, rifle or shotgun they want in whatever state they want.  I'm OK with a waiting period for your first firearm purchase, but not subsequent ones.  CCW should be national (like a driver's license).  I'm ok with a training or proof of competency test to get one.  Silencers shouldn't be Class III items.  Pistol grips, flash hiders, forward grips, and folding stocks should be permitted on all rifles (no bans on cosmetic features).  No magazine size restrictions.

How does that sound?  Can we compromise on this?
 
2014-02-13 01:32:20 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: SCUBA_Archer: What exactly would the insurance cover?  Don't most insurances exclude coverage for damage caused by criminal activity?  Or is this some back-door gun grabber justification to further restrain gun ownership when no sane insurance company is willing to offer policies to cover the onerous requirements laid down by the legislators.

Let me guess: You have having to buy car insurance that meets state minimum standards, too. Onerous is a great loaded term.


Don't be daft.  You know what I'm talking about.  Forcing requirements that make it unprofitable for any company to issue policies, basically causing people to either self-insure or do without.

And, unlike car insurance, if forced, I would absolutely buy the bare minimum insurance for carrying a weapon because I don't consider my gun behavior to be risky enough to warrant an insurance policy.  If a situation arises where I need to use my weapon in self defense, the last thing I would worry about is what my deductible might be or whether my latest premium was paid up.
 
2014-02-13 01:52:01 AM

SCUBA_Archer: demaL-demaL-yeH: SCUBA_Archer: What exactly would the insurance cover?  Don't most insurances exclude coverage for damage caused by criminal activity?  Or is this some back-door gun grabber justification to further restrain gun ownership when no sane insurance company is willing to offer policies to cover the onerous requirements laid down by the legislators.

Let me guess: You have having to buy car insurance that meets state minimum standards, too. Onerous is a great loaded term.

Don't be daft.  You know what I'm talking about.


Nonsense.
Ridiculous.
aaaaaaaaaand
Asinine

SCUBA_Archer: And, unlike car insurance, if forced, I would absolutely buy the bare minimum insurance for carrying a weapon because I don't consider my gun behavior to be risky enough to warrant an insurance policy.  If a situation arises where I need to use my weapon in self defense, the last thing I would worry about is what my deductible might be or whether my latest premium was paid up.


Carrying a deadly weapon in public is a risk, both to the carrier and to the public.
1. Self-assessment of skills is one huge part of the problem - since the person doing the assessment is, well, a bit prejudiced in his own favor: It's those other guys who are the problem.
2. Insurers offer discounts for behaviors that lower risks.
3. Walking around armed in public is risky behavior, so rates for that should be higher than for my huntin' rifle.
4. Walking around in public is safer than it's been since the early sixties, let alone in the late sixties when Ronald Reagan said"There's no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons."
 
2014-02-13 02:12:22 AM

SCUBA_Archer: How does that sound? Can we compromise on this?


It's a good starting point, yes. I have my reservations about certain things, but overall very minor.
But what is the tradeoff?
I'd ask for a national registry and insurance purchased on each weapon.
As demaL says, guns carry an inherent risk, and even the most responsible owner can have accidents, unintended consequences, or lapses in judgement and can't objectively determine of their own risk. That and a nationally recognized CCW will almost certainly require a national registry to be effective.
 
2014-02-13 05:00:01 AM
CSB: About a year ago, I was in a bar for a special occasion (it was Friday). There I was, enjoying a Taters and Tonic around closing time, when two chicks, very very inebriated, were talking. I wasn't paying attention to their talk, but the exchanges got louder and louder, until I heard a crashing sound and a piece of broken glass splashed into my drink. During a run of the mill drunken exchange, like I'm sure we all had, this on-any-other-occasion sorority chick-type girl smashed a shot glass over her friend's head, and the two were on the floor fighting. It took both bartenders and a 300+ pound bouncer to finally separate them. And this was in one of the more "classy" establishments in my town.

I can pretty much guess what would have happened if one of them would have had a pistol in their handbag.

Unlike Vermont, Wyoming, or Alaska, South Carolina actually has people in it. Plus, Myrtle Beach is a spring break destination for East Coast college students that don't want to go to Florida. Do you really want 5,000 drunken frat boys packing heat when they're 15 beers in?
 
2014-02-13 09:01:10 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: SCUBA_Archer: demaL-demaL-yeH: SCUBA_Archer: What exactly would the insurance cover?  Don't most insurances exclude coverage for damage caused by criminal activity?  Or is this some back-door gun grabber justification to further restrain gun ownership when no sane insurance company is willing to offer policies to cover the onerous requirements laid down by the legislators.

Let me guess: You have having to buy car insurance that meets state minimum standards, too. Onerous is a great loaded term.

Don't be daft.  You know what I'm talking about.

Nonsense.
Ridiculous.
aaaaaaaaaand
Asinine.


Which state-mandated coverages do these insurances cover?   These are what you call, "nice to have", but will probably be insufficient once the "think about the childreners: get done deciding how much risk the insurance companies need to cover.
 
2014-02-13 09:06:28 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH:4. Walking around in public is safer than it's been since the early sixties, let alone in the late sixties when Ronald Reagan said,  "There's no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons."

Ronald Reagan also supported James Brady's anti-gun crusade and announced that in his opinion, "No one needs an AK-47".  His opinion isn't worth much amongst the firearm fan crowd.

I expect that the data would show a sharp uptick in accidental shootings by CCW holders since the early '90s when states started reversing trends regarding issuance of licenses.  Let's see your evidence.
 
2014-02-13 09:54:23 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH:

Nonsense.
Ridiculous.
aaaaaaaaaand
Asinine.


Did you even read these websites before you posted?

 F&CCW insurance is strictly for covering the cost and process of your legal defense


NRA Self-defense Insurance Covers:
Up to the limit selected for criminal and civil defense costs
It's not always that simple. Any court case could result in you spending tens of thousands of dollars to protect your freedom and clear your name. Even once you're cleared of all criminal charges, the family of the deceased might take further action to sue you in civil court for wrongful death. Once a civil trial determines you are not liable for damages, you could still face a pile of legal bills in the process.
The cost of civil suit defense is provided in addition to the limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage
Criminal defense reimbursement is provided for alleged criminal actions involving self-defense when you are acquitted of charges



These policies cover LEGAL FEES to defend yourself against overzealous district attorneys who aren't willing to buy your claim of "self-defense".  Nothing in these policies would be useful in the case of a negligent discharge or some other crime.    Basically you're requiring CCW holders to have an ambulance chaser on retainer to bail their azzes out of trouble when the need arises.  Is that your goal here?
 
2014-02-13 11:50:23 AM

SCUBA_Archer: demaL-demaL-yeH:

Nonsense.
Ridiculous.
aaaaaaaaaand
Asinine.

Did you even read these websites before you posted?

 F&CCW insurance is strictly for covering the cost and process of your legal defense


NRA Self-defense Insurance Covers:
Up to the limit selected for criminal and civil defense costs
It's not always that simple. Any court case could result in you spending tens of thousands of dollars to protect your freedom and clear your name. Even once you're cleared of all criminal charges, the family of the deceased might take further action to sue you in civil court for wrongful death. Once a civil trial determines you are not liable for damages, you could still face a pile of legal bills in the process.
The cost of civil suit defense is provided in addition to the limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage
Criminal defense reimbursement is provided for alleged criminal actions involving self-defense when you are acquitted of charges


These policies cover LEGAL FEES to defend yourself against overzealous district attorneys who aren't willing to buy your claim of "self-defense".  Nothing in these policies would be useful in the case of a negligent discharge or some other crime.    Basically you're requiring CCW holders to have an ambulance chaser on retainer to bail their azzes out of trouble when the need arises.  Is that your goal here?


Qwicheryer whinin' and buy your ridiculously whiny, overconfident self an umbrella policy.
Man up and take full responsibility for walking around armed in public, or stick that firearm in a safe where it belongs.
 
2014-02-13 12:28:07 PM

DrBenway: redmid17: DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.

I'm not.

You're not what? Not going to explain why your comment about car insurance and license requirements wasn't disingenuous? Because not that long ago, you seemed anxious to have your thoughts on the matter of insurance addressed by someone.


You don't need insurance to exercise any other constitutional right. Obviously regulation and exercise of rights is subjective, but suffice it to say it sets a bad precedent. It would also likely be overly expensive, especially if it's per gun (instead of per owner/user) like a car is insured. That would probably fail a constitutional challenge in court.

What are the insurance policies going to cover, negligence and criminal acts? IANAL, an actuary, or a licensed insurance broker but every applicable insurance form I've signed has a disclaimer against intentional or negligent misuse of property (auto, renter's). You also can't force insurers to issue policies, so that could end up being a defacto ban in places that pass the law. At that point the government would likely have to step in and offer coverage, in an ham-fisted attempted to solve a problem they created in the first place. A ban on guns or concealed carry would not stand up to any legal scrutiny.
 
2014-02-13 12:39:12 PM

redmid17: DrBenway: redmid17: DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.

I'm not.

You're not what? Not going to explain why your comment about car insurance and license requirements wasn't disingenuous? Because not that long ago, you seemed anxious to have your thoughts on the matter of insurance addressed by someone.

You don't need insurance to exercise any other constitutional right. Obviously regulation and exercise of rights is subjective, but suffice it to say it sets a bad precedent. It would also likely be overly expensive, especially if it's per gun (instead of per owner/user) like a car is insured. That would probably fail a constitutional challenge in court.

What are the insurance policies going to cover, negligence and criminal acts? IANAL, an actuary, or a licensed insurance broker but every applicable insurance form I've signed has a disclaimer against intentional or negligent misuse of property (auto, renter's). You also can't force insurers to issue policies, so that could end up being a defacto ban in places that pass the law. At that point the government would likely ...


I'd also like to point out I'm unaware of country in the world that requires firearm insurance (though it was a brief survey). Additionally one would think that this kind of push would have come up at least once or twice in the 100+ years that states have been issuing public hunting licenses and the 30+ years states have been issuing concealed carry permits. That's not conclusive by any means but it makes one think about the veracity of the issue at the very least. Hunters expend ammunition legally at a far higher rate than conceal carried holders and people using guns to defend themselves*.

*Remember insurance wont' cover people who commit criminal acts or take their own life, which are by far the two biggest causes of firearm death and injury
 
2014-02-13 12:42:54 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: SCUBA_Archer: demaL-demaL-yeH:

Nonsense.
Ridiculous.
aaaaaaaaaand
Asinine.

Did you even read these websites before you posted?

 F&CCW insurance is strictly for covering the cost and process of your legal defense


NRA Self-defense Insurance Covers:
Up to the limit selected for criminal and civil defense costs
It's not always that simple. Any court case could result in you spending tens of thousands of dollars to protect your freedom and clear your name. Even once you're cleared of all criminal charges, the family of the deceased might take further action to sue you in civil court for wrongful death. Once a civil trial determines you are not liable for damages, you could still face a pile of legal bills in the process.
The cost of civil suit defense is provided in addition to the limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage
Criminal defense reimbursement is provided for alleged criminal actions involving self-defense when you are acquitted of charges


These policies cover LEGAL FEES to defend yourself against overzealous district attorneys who aren't willing to buy your claim of "self-defense".  Nothing in these policies would be useful in the case of a negligent discharge or some other crime.    Basically you're requiring CCW holders to have an ambulance chaser on retainer to bail their azzes out of trouble when the need arises.  Is that your goal here?

Qwicheryer whinin' and buy your ridiculously whiny, overconfident self an umbrella policy.
Man up and take full responsibility for walking around armed in public, or stick that firearm in a safe where it belongs.


So you got nuthin.  Just another backdoor scheme to remove guns from society.  If that's your endgame, how about removing them from the criminals first and then worrying about the law abiding citizens?
 
2014-02-13 01:24:40 PM

redmid17: DrBenway: redmid17: DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.

I'm not.

You're not what? Not going to explain why your comment about car insurance and license requirements wasn't disingenuous? Because not that long ago, you seemed anxious to have your thoughts on the matter of insurance addressed by someone.

You don't need insurance to exercise any other constitutional right. Obviously regulation and exercise of rights is subjective, but suffice it to say it sets a bad precedent. It would also likely be overly expensive, especially if it's per gun (instead of per owner/user) like a car is insured. That would probably fail a constitutional challenge in court.


Really? Try starting a newspaper or TV station without a license and insurance.
 
2014-02-13 01:29:15 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: redmid17: DrBenway: redmid17: DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.

I'm not.

You're not what? Not going to explain why your comment about car insurance and license requirements wasn't disingenuous? Because not that long ago, you seemed anxious to have your thoughts on the matter of insurance addressed by someone.

You don't need insurance to exercise any other constitutional right. Obviously regulation and exercise of rights is subjective, but suffice it to say it sets a bad precedent. It would also likely be overly expensive, especially if it's per gun (instead of per owner/user) like a car is insured. That would probably fail a constitutional challenge in court.

Really? Try starting a newspaper or TV station without a license and insurance.


You can print your own newspaper without license and insurance. TV stations require an operating permit because broadcast signals can overlap and cancel out. Also I wasn't advocating against licenses. I was talking about insurance. You can tell that from the sentence where I said "You don't need insurance to exercise any other constitutional right."
 
2014-02-13 02:01:01 PM

SCUBA_Archer: how about removing them from the criminals first


Do you not equate the availability of guns to criminals and the availability of guns to law-abiding citizens?
It may be illegal for a criminal to walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun, but as the gun nuts are so fond of saying, the law is not going to stop him from getting a gun. Guns being widely available to everyone else is only going to facilitate this.
A good gun insurance policy takes this into account, if and when something does occur, there's an actual policy that covers the damage paid for by the very same people who insist on having all these guns around.
 
2014-02-13 02:24:54 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: SCUBA_Archer: how about removing them from the criminals first

Do you not equate the availability of guns to criminals and the availability of guns to law-abiding citizens?
It may be illegal for a criminal to walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun, but as the gun nuts are so fond of saying, the law is not going to stop him from getting a gun. Guns being widely available to everyone else is only going to facilitate this.
A good gun insurance policy takes this into account, if and when something does occur, there's an actual policy that covers the damage paid for by the very same people who insist on having all these guns around.


Since when do criminals worry about making sure their guns are covered by an insurance policy?
 
2014-02-13 02:53:12 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Since when do criminals worry about making sure their guns are covered by an insurance policy?


Where did they get the gun they're not paying insurance on?
 
2014-02-13 02:58:02 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: SCUBA_Archer: Since when do criminals worry about making sure their guns are covered by an insurance policy?

Where did they get the gun they're not paying insurance on?


Any number of places. There are probably 300 million guns or more in the US. Most guns criminals used are stolen or straw purchased.
 
2014-02-13 03:23:58 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: SCUBA_Archer: Since when do criminals worry about making sure their guns are covered by an insurance policy?

Where did they get the gun they're not paying insurance on?


I'll play along with your silly argument since I think I see where you're going.

OK, Law-abiding citizen (L-A-C) buys a gun.  L-A-C dutifully buys insurance for gun.  Gun gets lost or stolen by L-A-C.  Criminal gets gun and uses it in a violent crime.

Are you saying that the insurance should be responsible for paying out whatever coverage they offered because a stolen gun was used in the commission of a crime? What insurance policy in the world would offer this kind of coverage?  Auto insurance policies don't cover cars until the end of forever.  And why wouldn't L-A-C cancel his insurance coverage after they paid out for the loss of the gun and open a new policy on his replacement gun?


Here's a thought.  Instead of gun owners buying insurance, why not have average citizens who are afraid of gun violence buy insurance to protect them?  This is how it works in the automotive world.  Your insurance policy covers YOU, you don't buy it to cover everyone else's mishaps.
 
2014-02-13 04:21:32 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Are you saying that the insurance should be responsible for paying out whatever coverage they offered because a stolen gun was used in the commission of a crime?


That's the general idea, yes. That's the risk we're trying to insure against, after all. The cost of insurance to the gun owner is to make them responsible enough to ensure this, among other things, does not happen, and rates would be incentivized towards lowered risk, like gun safes.

SCUBA_Archer: What insurance policy in the world would offer this kind of coverage? Auto insurance policies don't cover cars until the end of forever.


Gun insurance. Guns aren't cars, however useful the analogy.

SCUBA_Archer: And why wouldn't L-A-C cancel his insurance coverage after they paid out for the loss of the gun and open a new policy on his replacement gun?


And that's fine. And L-A-C's new rate will be higher because he lost his last gun. But the money paid out initially would/should still be there in the event the gun turns up again in the wrong hands and causes harm, or just added to a general fund used to help victims of gun violence.

SCUBA_Archer: Instead of gun owners buying insurance, why not have average citizens who are afraid of gun violence buy insurance to protect them? This is how it works in the automotive world. Your insurance policy covers YOU, you don't buy it to cover everyone else's mishaps.


Last I checked, the minimum liability insurance pays out to people whom my car has caused damage. I cut across the parkway and t-bone a station wagon, my policy pays to have their car fixed, not mine. I have to pay extra for that.
I don't see what's so different about applying it to guns. Your gun causes damage, your insurance pays out to the damaged party.
This is why you'll find so many people who don't buy into the "responsible gun owner" story. You're basically saying people should be taking out insurance policies to protect themselves from you and your toys. Doesn't sound very responsible to me. Perhaps those gun grabbers don't dislike the guns so much as the owners.
 
2014-02-13 10:23:30 PM
Your idea is bad and you should feel bad

What you're proposing isn't "insurance" per se, but a contribution to a general crime fund to be paid out in the event a victim suffers injuries as a result of a gun crime.  So let me expand further.  Would the US government (who has lost and misplaced many weapons) and state governments/police departments/sheriff's offices be the biggest contributors to said fund?  Their guns are used in the commission of many crimes.  And what about guns that were never owned by anybody?  Should Smith & Wesson / Glock / Sig / etc be forced to contribute to this fund?  And if so, wouldn't that be double dipping to then expect a gun owner to contribute to the same fund?  Finally, you want concealed carriers to solely fund this effort.  What about the millions of gun owners who don't carry concealed, but still lose their share of guns to criminals?  Are they off scot-free?  Why should concealed carriers (who are probably MORE responsible for their weapons than the average gun owner) be forced to shoulder this effort alone?
 
2014-02-13 11:41:13 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Your idea is bad and you should feel bad


I can tell I'm not going to get any reasoned discourse out of you after that little gem.
Off with you, gun nut. I'm done dealing with your refusal to take responsibility for the damage your toys cause.
 
2014-02-13 11:48:51 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: SCUBA_Archer: Your idea is bad and you should feel bad

I can tell I'm not going to get any reasoned discourse out of you after that little gem.
Off with you, gun nut. I'm done dealing with your refusal to take responsibility for the damage your toys cause.


My toys only damage pieces of paper.  I know that seems awfully scary to a pants wetter like you, but it really isn't that big a deal.  The paper probably enjoys it.  Anyway, good night, may the boogeyman not threaten you in your sleep.
 
2014-02-14 12:06:11 AM

SCUBA_Archer: Sergeant Grumbles: SCUBA_Archer: Your idea is bad and you should feel bad

I can tell I'm not going to get any reasoned discourse out of you after that little gem.
Off with you, gun nut. I'm done dealing with your refusal to take responsibility for the damage your toys cause.

My toys only damage pieces of paper.  I know that seems awfully scary to a pants wetter like you, but it really isn't that big a deal.  The paper probably enjoys it.  Anyway, good night, may the boogeyman not threaten you in your sleep.


*sigh*
You want to walk around armed in public in order to "damage pieces of paper".
And you call firearms "toys".

Do you want to add anything more to help us assess your maturity, safety, mental state, and skill level?
 
2014-02-14 12:09:41 AM

SCUBA_Archer: My toys only damage pieces of paper.


If it stayed that way, no one would have a problem. But it's that nasty little tendency for those guns to hurt people, in both the right and wrong hands, coupled with the gun lobby's insistence that there be little to no strings attached to gun ownership, that maybe, just maybe, we don't trust you with the guns.
I like gun insurance on all privately owned guns because working correctly it would pay for any damages caused and act as financial incentive for safe behavior. It's what responsible gun owners would do.
 
Displayed 232 of 232 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report