Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(CNN)   Good news: if you sold an assault rifle in the past year then you made a nice profit. Bad news: if you bought an assault rifle in the past year then you're a sucker   (money.cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, assault weapons, Wedbush Securities, assault rifles, Sandy Hook, Thunder, Falls Church  
•       •       •

9789 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 3:13 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-04-10 11:54:54 AM  

ox45tallboy: Firethorn: 1.  It shouldn't be off the books then.
2.  Misdemeanor DV is still a disqualifier to even touch firearms just like a felony due to the Lautenberg Amendment
3.  Historically sheriffs like using their 'discretion' more to deny minorities*, poor people, of the wrong party, or just plain didn't donate enough to his last re-election campaign.

*One of the reasons discretion is being shot down in some areas, due to obvious racial discrimination in it's use.

Sometimes small-town sheriffs make a judgement call on some things, like if Billy Ray gets arrested for doing something stupid, he'll lose his job down at the plant and Lerlene and the baby will be out on the street, so a nice little conversation in the back of the patrol car might be the best way of handling the situation. Sometimes, a small town sheriff knows that some drug dealing is going on, and he tolerates it because the dealer is smart enough to keep the violence away from his town, and if he busts the guy, then the next dealer might not be so smart. Sometimes the guy is just too slippery to bust. Once again, while there might not be arrest records or a criminal record, there are almost certainl police reports to back up the decision of the local guys.

Letting local law enforcement set the rules for their town has worked pretty well for most of American history. The whole "shall issue" movement is relatively new and unproven, and causes major headaches.

The irony is that most people that support "shall issue" are strong states' rights advocates who believe that someone in Washington, far removed the local area, has no business telling people in the state how to run things. The fact is, though, what works for inner city Atlanta to reduce gun violence doesn't always work for backwater Appalachia, and trying to pigeonhole both areas into the same set of gun laws usually hurts one area as much as it helps the other. Local control is best, as long as there is an appeals process for those who believe t ...


It's caused headaches for people who don't like Shall Issue. In the states that readily publish and study CCW crime statistics (florida, texas, michigan from memory), the crime rate of the general population is far higher (ie Texas ). The number of revocations is generally a small fraction of 1% of the licenses issued, and the primary cause for revocation is usually DUI, not a violent crime or a crime involving a gun.

For reference -

Florida -  http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Licensing/Concealed - Weapon-License/Statistical-Reports
Texas -  http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm
NC -  http://www.ncdoj.gov/CHPStats.aspx
Michigan -  http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-77621--,00.ht m l

Many people were worried that introducing shall issue permits would raise crime rates. That definitely hasn't happened. The people vetted usually don't go around committing crimes either, gun or no. Not all "shall-issue" systems are equal, but someone who has gone to the trouble to get fingerprints, take firearms training (typically required), submit an application for a background check, and pay a chunk of change for the ability to carry a gun isn't going to take that too lightly.
 
2014-04-10 12:03:25 PM  

R.A.Danny: ox45tallboy: the number of guns and the number of criminals has increased.

Crime rates are markedly down, dude. Who's feeding you this line of crap?


They're markedly down and from what little BJS info I can find, it looks like recidivism rates are up (At least from 83-02). That's a small set of data though.
 
2014-04-10 12:07:16 PM  

R.A.Danny: ox45tallboy: You're absolutely correct. However, the proliferation of guns is definitely rooted in the drug war.

There's a 4 decade decline in gun ownership.

Be careful, both sides have propagandized this.


Yeah, there's a crapload of blatant propaganda on both sides...it's hard to sort through the B.S.
 
2014-04-10 12:18:03 PM  

R.A.Danny: ox45tallboy: You're absolutely correct. However, the proliferation of guns is definitely rooted in the drug war.

There's a 4 decade decline in gun ownership.

Be careful, both sides have propagandized this.


The problem with that study is that it completely ignores the fact that gun owners now are much less likely to admit that they own a gun compared to 20 and 30 years ago.  I don't see anywhere in this survey where they have discussed or attempted to characterized the false negatives. It very well may be true, but since they skirt this topic entirely, I am a bit skeptical.
 
2014-04-10 12:22:59 PM  

HeadLever: R.A.Danny: ox45tallboy: You're absolutely correct. However, the proliferation of guns is definitely rooted in the drug war.

There's a 4 decade decline in gun ownership.

Be careful, both sides have propagandized this.

The problem with that study is that it completely ignores the fact that gun owners now are much less likely to admit that they own a gun compared to 20 and 30 years ago.  I don't see anywhere in this survey where they have discussed or attempted to characterized the false negatives. It very well may be true, but since they skirt this topic entirely, I am a bit skeptical.


Honesty in studies has always been a problem, but there is no reason to think this time around was any less honest than usual.
 
2014-04-10 12:23:27 PM  

ox45tallboy: I'm not getting why you keep calling my ideas a "troll".


If you like your gun, you can keep your gun.  Just sounded like a parody of the "Obamacare" teaparty talking point line that the unscrupulous media kept pounding in to peoples heads.

I read all the other stuff too.  I don't subscribe to your ideas what so ever, nor do I have real suggestions as to what to do to help make your idealistic desires come to fruition.  I'm not saying your idea are unrealistic with the exception of where all the magic dollars are going to come from to fund it.  But seriously, it's a pretty pie-in-the-sky proposition at best.

My one and really only point after reading most gun threads about new gun laws is pretty simple.  Law abiding gun owners such as the folks I know will follow the letter of the law.  If you enact new laws, they will follow them as they are, again, law-abiding citizens.

Criminals, on the other hand, are notorious for breaking laws.  That's what fundamentally makes them criminals.  No matter what laws you enact, no matter what restrictions you place on law-abiding gun owners, no matter what the reasons, angles, or justifications, criminals are going to break the laws.  Criminals will always have guns and will always cause crime.

Taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens may certainly help to curb some of the unnecessary gun deaths caused by foolish gun owners and may even cut down on the vigilante-type shootings which is senseless violence, but it damned sure will not curb a single criminal from perpetrating acts of violence to justify their nefarious undertakings while using a firearm to commit the act.

That's my outlook on it all.

All of the rest of the semantics bullshiat is just smoke and mirrors.  Words DO mean something, but in the grand scheme of things, there are people that want to remove guns from society and those who do not irrespective of the accessories or add-ons involved.  Stick all the fancy stuff you want on a gun, it's designed to go bang no matter the stock type, barrel length et al.
 
2014-04-10 12:31:32 PM  

PunGent: I think it's a pity the NRA doesn't believe in allowing doctors to discuss gun safes, or any other aspect of gun safety, with the parents of newborns...I guess they're just not a fan of the First Amendment.


The problem was that the doctors weren't discussing gun safes, they were discussing getting rid of the guns and handing out blatantly anti-gun propaganda and worse.

ox45tallboy: Sometimes small-town sheriffs make a judgement call on some things, like if Billy Ray gets arrested for doing something stupid, he'll lose his job down at the plant and Lerlene and the baby will be out on the street, so a nice little conversation in the back of the patrol car might be the best way of handling the situation.


1.  The problem with Billy is guns in the house, not him carrying them(most likely).
2.  The dealer will just carry illegally.
3.  I happen to support due process of law.  If you're going to deny guns you need to follow it.
4.  Most people aren't under 'small-town sheriffs'.  Most are under large ones that have no such choice.
5.  Such 'beneficial' uses are vastly outweighed by the Sheriff denying Billy's application solely because of Billy's skin shade or the fact that he lives on the wrong side of town.

ox45tallboy: The fact is, though, what works for inner city Atlanta to reduce gun violence doesn't always work for backwater Appalachia, and trying to pigeonhole both areas into the same set of gun laws usually hurts one area as much as it helps the other.


1.  I typically look to reduce violence in general, not just 'gun violence'.
2.  The laws that places like 'inner city Atlanta' have tried haven't worked.

ox45tallboy: , the number of guns and the number of criminals has increased.


[citation needed] on the number of criminals.  Violent crime has been steadily sliding down for over a decade.
 
2014-04-10 12:34:12 PM  

R.A.Danny: but there is no reason to think this time around was any less honest than usual.


Oh, I am sure the poll's authors are reporting the numbers correctly.  My exception taken with your point above is regarding the is my belief that as the gun control discussion gets louder and louder, more and more gun owners would not admit to owning a gun when asked in these types of surveys.  This could defiantly create a skew in the polls by folks being 'less honest than usual'.
 
2014-04-10 12:36:21 PM  

HeadLever: R.A.Danny: but there is no reason to think this time around was any less honest than usual.

Oh, I am sure the poll's authors are reporting the numbers correctly.  My exception taken with your point above is regarding the is my belief that as the gun control discussion gets louder and louder, more and more gun owners would not admit to owning a gun when asked in these types of surveys.  This could defiantly create a skew in the polls by folks being 'less honest than usual'.


I respectfully do not buy that. Gun owners are a proud bunch overall.
 
2014-04-10 12:41:47 PM  

R.A.Danny: HeadLever: R.A.Danny: but there is no reason to think this time around was any less honest than usual.

Oh, I am sure the poll's authors are reporting the numbers correctly.  My exception taken with your point above is regarding the is my belief that as the gun control discussion gets louder and louder, more and more gun owners would not admit to owning a gun when asked in these types of surveys.  This could defiantly create a skew in the polls by folks being 'less honest than usual'.

I respectfully do not buy that. Gun owners are a proud bunch overall.


If I get a random survey call (to a landline tied to a physical address mind you) asking me if I have guns in the house, I'm certainly not going to say yes. There are plenty of dipshiats who put "Protected by the NRA" or "First shot's a warning" stickers on their house or property. All that really does is tell anyone willing to case houses that you have guns and to come back when no one is home.

I'd be more wiling to answer yes to "do you own guns" if it were a properly anonymized survey not tied back to a physical address or my name.
 
2014-04-10 12:45:58 PM  

R.A.Danny: Gun owners are a proud bunch overall.


You can still be 'proud' and say that you have no guns when asked by outsiders. Some may be very proud, but many are also very skeptical of those that they don't know asking these types of questions.

I would be very much be tempted to say 'no' if ever asked.
 
2014-04-10 12:47:13 PM  

HeadLever: R.A.Danny: Gun owners are a proud bunch overall.

You can still be 'proud' and say that you have no guns when asked by outsiders. Some may be very proud, but many are also very skeptical of those that they don't know asking these types of questions.

I would be very much be tempted to say 'no' if ever asked.


It certainly depends on the type of survey.
 
2014-04-10 12:56:11 PM  

R.A.Danny: ox45tallboy: the number of guns and the number of criminals has increased.

Crime rates are markedly down, dude. Who's feeding you this line of crap?


Hold up there. I said the "number of criminals". As in, the number of those convicted of crimes which would preclude them from gun ownership. Many of these crimes don't involve a gun, but still mean no gun for you.

It's kind of an aggregate thing; someone gets convicted, they get added to the list, and they never come off unless they are exonerated or die.
 
2014-04-10 12:58:02 PM  

Doom MD: Meth dealers are not applying for ccw permits.


Not convicted ones. You have any idea how many people involved in the drug trade have never been convicted, and who have all of the necessary paperwork for their firearms? Do you know how many drug users have CCW permits?
 
2014-04-10 12:59:30 PM  

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Meth dealers are not applying for ccw permits.

Not convicted ones. You have any idea how many people involved in the drug trade have never been convicted, and who have all of the necessary paperwork for their firearms? Do you know how many drug users have CCW permits?


Probably not many since most habitual drug users and dealers get arrested eventually and by far the largest source of revocations is DUIs.
 
2014-04-10 01:00:58 PM  

redmid17: "First shot's a warning"


That is so 2009.  The new sticker is this:

sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2014-04-10 01:03:41 PM  

HeadLever: redmid17: "First shot's a warning"

That is so 2009.  The new sticker is this:

[sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net image 600x600]


Look. I'm spending all my money on ammo and AR-15s. I'm not gonna splurge on a new sign. Obama didn't say he was coming for those, well not yet anyway.
 
2014-04-10 01:04:22 PM  

redmid17: Many people were worried that introducing shall issue permits would raise crime rates. That definitely hasn't happened. The people vetted usually don't go around committing crimes either, gun or no. Not all "shall-issue" systems are equal, but someone who has gone to the trouble to get fingerprints, take firearms training (typically required), submit an application for a background check, and pay a chunk of change for the ability to carry a gun isn't going to take that too lightly.


Yes, and most sheriffs aren't going to take the decision to deny a CCW permit very lightly, either, especially if there is an appeals process that would likely expose whatever other corruption he or she might have going on.

redmid17: It's caused headaches for people who don't like Shall Issue


So... if it's not a problem for most all of people to carry a gun, but it is for a tiny percentage, who is in the better position to make that judgement call - a state legislator who says "give 'em all guns", or a local sheriff who knows the person rather well?

Do you have any statistics at all to back up the assertion that local sheriffs have a history of abusing the "may issue" system, at least at a statistically higher percentage than the people who commit crimes with their "shall issue" permitted guns?

Either way will infringe on someone's rights, whether it be the person who can't exercise their 2nd or the dead people that can't exercise any of them; I'm just looking for some statistical basis of which affects more people.
 
2014-04-10 01:15:33 PM  

ox45tallboy: redmid17: Many people were worried that introducing shall issue permits would raise crime rates. That definitely hasn't happened. The people vetted usually don't go around committing crimes either, gun or no. Not all "shall-issue" systems are equal, but someone who has gone to the trouble to get fingerprints, take firearms training (typically required), submit an application for a background check, and pay a chunk of change for the ability to carry a gun isn't going to take that too lightly.

Yes, and most sheriffs aren't going to take the decision to deny a CCW permit very lightly, either, especially if there is an appeals process that would likely expose whatever other corruption he or she might have going on.

redmid17: It's caused headaches for people who don't like Shall Issue

So... if it's not a problem for most all of people to carry a gun, but it is for a tiny percentage, who is in the better position to make that judgement call - a state legislator who says "give 'em all guns", or a local sheriff who knows the person rather well?

Do you have any statistics at all to back up the assertion that local sheriffs have a history of abusing the "may issue" system, at least at a statistically higher percentage than the people who commit crimes with their "shall issue" permitted guns?

Either way will infringe on someone's rights, whether it be the person who can't exercise their 2nd or the dead people that can't exercise any of them; I'm just looking for some statistical basis of which affects more people.


The May Issue position has caused a lot more problems than the Shall Issue position. The "local" sheriff might know people in a small town. He's not going to know everyone in the county, especially given that something like 75% of people live in a metro area. Tom Dart doesn't know me, and he'd have to sign off on a CCW were I to apply for one.

Also drug dealers who would pass a background check for a CCW likely already have bought or will buy a gun legally. That someone might be a drug addict or criminal shouldn't be a reason to deny a CCW permit, especially when there is scant information to back up your point.
 
2014-04-10 01:24:01 PM  

AltheaToldMe: I don't subscribe to your ideas what so ever, nor do I have real suggestions as to what to do to help make your idealistic desires come to fruition.


Hey, that's cool. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, nor do I have any realistic expectation of my ideas gaining enough traction to become reality. But I appreciate you taking the time to read them.

AltheaToldMe: I'm not saying your idea are unrealistic with the exception of where all the magic dollars are going to come from to fund it.


The same place the magic dollars came from to fund the Iraq War. Only this time, we're actually saving lives instead of killing people.

AltheaToldMe: Criminals, on the other hand, are notorious for breaking laws.  That's what fundamentally makes them criminals.  No matter what laws you enact, no matter what restrictions you place on law-abiding gun owners, no matter what the reasons, angles, or justifications, criminals are going to break the laws.  Criminals will always have guns and will always cause crime.


I agree completely with what you've written here.

That's why it's my idea to reduce the number of guns. The law-abiding people will instinctively grab them up as they have been conditioned to do by the NRA, and there won't be as many around for the criminals. That's why I want to focus on the cheaper weapons - they're most likely to be used in a crime.

AltheaToldMe: Words DO mean something, but in the grand scheme of things, there are people that want to remove guns from society and those who do not irrespective of the accessories or add-ons involved.  Stick all the fancy stuff you want on a gun, it's designed to go bang no matter the stock type, barrel length et al.


I'm not a hypocrite: I want to keep my own gun, and I want all of my family to keep theirs. I do want it harder for my parents' meth-addict neighbor to get one. But I live in a civilized society where we don't have a bunch of roving barbarian hordes on the loose that I need to arm myself to the teeth every time I walk to the store for a gallon of milk. The people that insist they do live in that society, all evidence to the contrary, are actually making that society more likely to come into being.
 
2014-04-10 01:34:26 PM  

Firethorn: 1.  The problem with Billy is guns in the house, not him carrying them(most likely).


People like that tend to be people who like to intimidate others. Carrying a gun around is intimidating to others, which is why they do it.

Firethorn: 2.  The dealer will just carry illegally.


Yes, some will. But this will keep them from doing so legally, giving the sheriff a reason to bust him.

Firethorn: 3.  I happen to support due process of law.  If you're going to deny guns you need to follow it.


I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

Firethorn: 4.  Most people aren't under 'small-town sheriffs'.  Most are under large ones that have no such choice


And it should be up to the local municipalities whether they believe people should carry guns around their town or not, based on their particular circumstances. What works in inner-city Atlanta might not be the best option in backwoods central Georgia.

Firethorn: 5.  Such 'beneficial' uses are vastly outweighed by the Sheriff denying Billy's application solely because of Billy's skin shade or the fact that he lives on the wrong side of town.


Which is why there should be an appeals process in place.

Firethorn: 1.  I typically look to reduce violence in general, not just 'gun violence'.


That's a worthy goal. In some places, fewer guns means less violence in general; in other places, fewer guns mean more violence. This is why there should be more local control.

Firethorn: 2.  The laws that places like 'inner city Atlanta' have tried haven't worked


That depends on what you mean by "haven't worked". It's sometimes impossible to say what has and hasn't worked because there no way of proving the outcome if different decisions were made with the same external factors at a particular point in history, since the external factors are invariably different when something new is tried.
 
2014-04-10 01:37:03 PM  

Firethorn: [citation needed] on the number of criminals.  Violent crime has been steadily sliding down for over a decade.


The number of people who at some point in their lives have been convicted of a felony (or other crime which prevents firearm ownership) is increasing faster than the rate of said people either dying or being exonerated of the crime. Convictions themselves are going down, but the number of people who at some point have been convicted is going up.
 
2014-04-10 01:40:27 PM  

R.A.Danny: It certainly depends on the type of survey.


cdn2.dualshockers.com
"Would you like to see a movie starring George Wendt eating beans?"

 
2014-04-10 01:40:36 PM  

ox45tallboy: Firethorn: [citation needed] on the number of criminals.  Violent crime has been steadily sliding down for over a decade.

The number of people who at some point in their lives have been convicted of a felony (or other crime which prevents firearm ownership) is increasing faster than the rate of said people either dying or being exonerated of the crime. Convictions themselves are going down, but the number of people who at some point have been convicted is going up.


And the recidivism rate is extremely high. The people getting arrested now were the same people getting arrested before.
 
2014-04-10 01:42:05 PM  

redmid17: And the recidivism rate is extremely high. The people getting arrested now were the same people getting arrested before.


And they still have guns, proving that only law abiding citizens are law abiding.
 
2014-04-10 01:46:33 PM  

redmid17: ox45tallboy: Firethorn: [citation needed] on the number of criminals.  Violent crime has been steadily sliding down for over a decade.

The number of people who at some point in their lives have been convicted of a felony (or other crime which prevents firearm ownership) is increasing faster than the rate of said people either dying or being exonerated of the crime. Convictions themselves are going down, but the number of people who at some point have been convicted is going up.

And the recidivism rate is extremely high. The people getting arrested now were the same people getting arrested before.


And to add onto that, the people who've been convicted and can no longer own firearms are only criminals if they are wanted by the law for crimes, committing crimes, or in jail. If someone has paid their debt to society and is out free, they are no longer a criminal. They just can't own a gun.
 
2014-04-10 01:47:07 PM  

redmid17: The May Issue position has caused a lot more problems than the Shall Issue position. The "local" sheriff might know people in a small town. He's not going to know everyone in the county, especially given that something like 75% of people live in a metro area. Tom Dart doesn't know me, and he'd have to sign off on a CCW were I to apply for one.


Do you think that maybe the reason Tom Dart doesn't know you might have something to do with the fact that you're a law-abiding citizen?

I'm not talking about sheriffs doing all the background research, I'm talking about sheriffs having a veto power for the people they do know to be not quite of sound judgement.

redmid17: Also drug dealers who would pass a background check for a CCW likely already have bought or will buy a gun legally. That someone might be a drug addict or criminal shouldn't be a reason to deny a CCW permit, especially when there is scant information to back up your point.


Which is why there should be an appeals process. Any sheriff who has reason to deny a permit would be very likely to have police reports and the like to back up his stance, or the permit would be issued, even over his objection.

Also, please re-read this sentence you typed:

redmid17: That someone might be a drug addict or criminal shouldn't be a reason to deny a CCW permit


So... we should err on the side of giving everyone the means to harm or even kill other people, even when there is evidence they will likely use it do harm or even kill someone else? I'm not sure if I like that society.
 
2014-04-10 01:49:17 PM  

ox45tallboy: So... we should err on the side of giving everyone the means to harm or even kill other people, even when there is evidence they will likely use it do harm or even kill someone else? I'm not sure if I like that society.


There is no error in letting someone that has not been convicted of a crime exercise their rights. This has nothing to do with guns.
 
2014-04-10 01:52:57 PM  

ox45tallboy: redmid17: The May Issue position has caused a lot more problems than the Shall Issue position. The "local" sheriff might know people in a small town. He's not going to know everyone in the county, especially given that something like 75% of people live in a metro area. Tom Dart doesn't know me, and he'd have to sign off on a CCW were I to apply for one.

Do you think that maybe the reason Tom Dart doesn't know you might have something to do with the fact that you're a law-abiding citizen?

I'm not talking about sheriffs doing all the background research, I'm talking about sheriffs having a veto power for the people they do know to be not quite of sound judgement.

redmid17: Also drug dealers who would pass a background check for a CCW likely already have bought or will buy a gun legally. That someone might be a drug addict or criminal shouldn't be a reason to deny a CCW permit, especially when there is scant information to back up your point.

Which is why there should be an appeals process. Any sheriff who has reason to deny a permit would be very likely to have police reports and the like to back up his stance, or the permit would be issued, even over his objection.

Also, please re-read this sentence you typed:

redmid17: That someone might be a drug addict or criminal shouldn't be a reason to deny a CCW permit

So... we should err on the side of giving everyone the means to harm or even kill other people, even when there is evidence they will likely use it do harm or even kill someone else? I'm not sure if I like that society.


1) Tom Dart doesn't know me because he's a sheriff in a county of 3 million people.
2) If the sheriff or CoP has police reports on someone, that person is likely going to be denied a gun purchase, let alone a CCW. The sheriff doesn't just magically give you a carry permit because you ask him nicely.
3) If there is any type of substantial evidence, the permit will and should be denied. There  is almost no justification for denying permits on your grounds, not because it's a bad idea, but because there is almost no evidence to suggest it would benefit the state more than it would burden applicants.
 
2014-04-10 02:00:35 PM  

redmid17: And to add onto that, the people who've been convicted and can no longer own firearms are only criminals if they are wanted by the law for crimes, committing crimes, or in jail. If someone has paid their debt to society and is out free, they are no longer a criminal. They just can't own a gun.


technically correct.jpg

I used "criminals" in the sense that someone convicted of a set of specific crimes is no longer able to own a gun, although in some states it is still possible.

But other than those people in those states who have jumped through the hoops, the act of possessing a gun makes them a criminal once again, even under your definition. So I'm technically correct as well.
 
2014-04-10 02:01:56 PM  

R.A.Danny: There is no error in letting someone that has not been convicted of a crime exercise their rights. This has nothing to do with guns.


Tell that to the people who die because of it. They don't have any 2nd Amendment rights anymore, either.
 
2014-04-10 02:02:29 PM  

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Meth dealers are not applying for ccw permits.

Not convicted ones. You have any idea how many people involved in the drug trade have never been convicted, and who have all of the necessary paperwork for their firearms? Do you know how many drug users have CCW permits?


The burden of proof is on you.

And no, drug dealers are not getting ccw permits and registering handguns to themselves. If you're carrying meth all day what is the point? Why would you draw attention to yourself? Yet another proposal of yours engineered out of fanciful thinking.
 
2014-04-10 02:02:35 PM  

Jackson Herring: James!: The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.

my ten year old cousin told me the other day that obama is going take away all my guns

this is not a joke


I have a 23 year old cousin that thinks Republicans are going to take away birth control. So I feel your pain.
 
2014-04-10 02:03:43 PM  

ox45tallboy: redmid17: And to add onto that, the people who've been convicted and can no longer own firearms are only criminals if they are wanted by the law for crimes, committing crimes, or in jail. If someone has paid their debt to society and is out free, they are no longer a criminal. They just can't own a gun.

technically correct.jpg

I used "criminals" in the sense that someone convicted of a set of specific crimes is no longer able to own a gun, although in some states it is still possible.

But other than those people in those states who have jumped through the hoops, the act of possessing a gun makes them a criminal once again, even under your definition. So I'm technically correct as well.


Those people who have jumped through the hoops are not going to be coming from the same pool of people. If you're a prohibited person*, you cannot own a gun and you cannot be granted a carry permit.

*felony or DV conviction, mentally adjudicated, dishonorable discharge, drug addict, restraining order (Active), illegal alien, someone whose renounced their citizenship
 
2014-04-10 02:06:11 PM  

ox45tallboy: redmid17: Many people were worried that introducing shall issue permits would raise crime rates. That definitely hasn't happened. The people vetted usually don't go around committing crimes either, gun or no. Not all "shall-issue" systems are equal, but someone who has gone to the trouble to get fingerprints, take firearms training (typically required), submit an application for a background check, and pay a chunk of change for the ability to carry a gun isn't going to take that too lightly.

Yes, and most sheriffs aren't going to take the decision to deny a CCW permit very lightly, either, especially if there is an appeals process that would likely expose whatever other corruption he or she might have going on.

redmid17: It's caused headaches for people who don't like Shall Issue

So... if it's not a problem for most all of people to carry a gun, but it is for a tiny percentage, who is in the better position to make that judgement call - a state legislator who says "give 'em all guns", or a local sheriff who knows the person rather well?

Do you have any statistics at all to back up the assertion that local sheriffs have a history of abusing the "may issue" system, at least at a statistically higher percentage than the people who commit crimes with their "shall issue" permitted guns?

Either way will infringe on someone's rights, whether it be the person who can't exercise their 2nd or the dead people that can't exercise any of them; I'm just looking for some statistical basis of which affects more people.


a lazy google search would give you countless examples. Hell, the state of nj uses shall issue to essentially be "no issue". Ccw permits there are so rare as to be unheard of. The state has declined ccw permits to people who have been kidnapping victims. It's not a right if you need permission to exercise it.
 
2014-04-10 02:06:31 PM  

redmid17: 1) Tom Dart doesn't know me because he's a sheriff in a county of 3 million people


But I'm willing to bet he know may of the criminals.

redmid17: 2) If the sheriff or CoP has police reports on someone, that person is likely going to be denied a gun purchase, let alone a CCW. The sheriff doesn't just magically give you a carry permit because you ask him nicely.


Ummm... I think maybe you need to look up the definition of "shall issue", because it means precisely that. If you don't have any felony convictions, the local authorities MUST give you a gun permit, no matter what kind of other trouble you are causing. I would prefer it to be the way you have described, but this is not the case in "shall issue" states.

redmid17: 3) If there is any type of substantial evidence, the permit will and should be denied. There  is almost no justification for denying permits on your grounds, not because it's a bad idea, but because there is almost no evidence to suggest it would benefit the state more than it would burden applicants


Once again, I'm not sure if you understand what you're arguing. "Shall issue" means the sheriff is not able to object to a firearms license - if the person passes the conviction check, then the person must be issued the permit. What you're thinking of is "may issue", which is exactly what I'm advocating for. I think we're actually on the same side here.
 
2014-04-10 02:07:56 PM  

ox45tallboy: R.A.Danny: There is no error in letting someone that has not been convicted of a crime exercise their rights. This has nothing to do with guns.

Tell that to the people who die because of it. They don't have any 2nd Amendment rights anymore, either.


So you are saying that we should take away rights without a conviction? Is this really what I am hearing?
 
2014-04-10 02:08:39 PM  

Doom MD: The burden of proof is on you.

And no, drug dealers are not getting ccw permits and registering handguns to themselves. If you're carrying meth all day what is the point? Why would you draw attention to yourself? Yet another proposal of yours engineered out of fanciful thinking.


Because as anyone not completely on the side of the law knows, the way to minimize any risk of getting caught is to only break one law at a time. CCW doesn't call attention to yourself, instead it deflects attention because any cop that runs your plates knows that you aren't a criminal.
 
2014-04-10 02:08:47 PM  
ox45tallboy:

Listen here...This is no place for actual opinions without name calling and personal attacks so in that respact:

Go to hell you gun-banning, socialist moran!  Stick your assault weapons ban up you arse! :-)

So, with all snark aside, in my town, it's apparently very lucrative to sell heroin and crack because all of the heads in the city really prefer Taurus or Sigs for their waistband piece as opposed to stamped metal drop guns.  Maybe we just have some high-class thugs up in the 'burg.  They want reliability and quality so it seems.  Maybe the younger bangers like the cheap gats, but I cannot confirm, nor deny that.

See how easy that is to converse without being derogatory.  We certainly don't agree, but neither of us is really all that bent out of shape about it.  For the record, I have been labeled a gun nut here, but I don't foam at the mouth about it.  Furthermore, I have left more that one range where the LEO/Frat Boys could not keep even a modicum of weapon control (sweeping the firing line with an un-cleared weapon or handling their weapons while others are up range adjusting targets).  I don't correct them, I just get the fark out of the situation.  And those are some of the law-abding citizens I spoke about up-thread.  That's the kind of shiat that really worries we 'gun nuts', as opposed to the home invasion or public shootout type situations.  Well, I speak for myself anyway.
 
2014-04-10 02:10:06 PM  

ox45tallboy: R.A.Danny: There is no error in letting someone that has not been convicted of a crime exercise their rights. This has nothing to do with guns.

Tell that to the people who die because of it. They don't have any 2nd Amendment rights anymore, either.


where did the feel touch you?
 
2014-04-10 02:13:59 PM  

redmid17: Those people who have jumped through the hoops are not going to be coming from the same pool of people. If you're a prohibited person*, you cannot own a gun and you cannot be granted a carry permit.

*felony or DV conviction, mentally adjudicated, dishonorable discharge, drug addict, restraining order (Active), illegal alien, someone whose renounced their citizenship


So who decides who is a drug addict? What about the guy who got caught red-handed with a bunch of meth, but the evidence had to be tossed because it was improperly collected? Or the guy whose wife refused to testify against him for a DV case? Or the guy that's borderline mental, and does okay by himself and has a job and can function in society, but doesn't need a gun because he goes off his meds sometimes?

Local control is the best way of answering these issues. Sheriff Joe isn't the rule anymore, he's the exception. Most of the sheriffs in this country are good, relatively honest men who really do try to keep the peace and be fair. You put in an appeals process, with the NRA ready to scream from the rooftops anytime someone is denied a gun permit unfairly, and you have a pretty honest system.
 
2014-04-10 02:14:50 PM  

ox45tallboy: redmid17: 1) Tom Dart doesn't know me because he's a sheriff in a county of 3 million people

But I'm willing to bet he know may of the criminals.

redmid17: 2) If the sheriff or CoP has police reports on someone, that person is likely going to be denied a gun purchase, let alone a CCW. The sheriff doesn't just magically give you a carry permit because you ask him nicely.

Ummm... I think maybe you need to look up the definition of "shall issue", because it means precisely that. If you don't have any felony convictions, the local authorities MUST give you a gun permit, no matter what kind of other trouble you are causing. I would prefer it to be the way you have described, but this is not the case in "shall issue" states.

redmid17: 3) If there is any type of substantial evidence, the permit will and should be denied. There  is almost no justification for denying permits on your grounds, not because it's a bad idea, but because there is almost no evidence to suggest it would benefit the state more than it would burden applicants

Once again, I'm not sure if you understand what you're arguing. "Shall issue" means the sheriff is not able to object to a firearms license - if the person passes the conviction check, then the person must be issued the permit. What you're thinking of is "may issue", which is exactly what I'm advocating for. I think we're actually on the same side here.


if the sheriff can't prove you're a lawbreaking troublemaker with actual evidence in a court of law he should not be able to restrict your ccw based on "a feeling". If you're denied a ccw based on a completely subjective reason then what the hell is going to occur at an appeal? There's already no evidence to support the applicant is a criminal, so is he applicant then subjecting themself to the arbitrary whims of a judge as well? You have an unhealthy and naive trust of authority.
 
2014-04-10 02:16:10 PM  

ox45tallboy: What about the guy who got caught red-handed with a bunch of meth, but the evidence had to be tossed because it was improperly collected?


We should get rid of those pesky Fourth Amendment rights so that never happens. If you're gonna take someone's rights away, you need to do it correctly, with an actual legal arrest, proper evidence collection, a fair trial, and a conviction. Otherwise you're just pissing in the wind.
 
2014-04-10 02:17:18 PM  

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: The burden of proof is on you.

And no, drug dealers are not getting ccw permits and registering handguns to themselves. If you're carrying meth all day what is the point? Why would you draw attention to yourself? Yet another proposal of yours engineered out of fanciful thinking.

Because as anyone not completely on the side of the law knows, the way to minimize any risk of getting caught is to only break one law at a time. CCW doesn't call attention to yourself, instead it deflects attention because any cop that runs your plates knows that you aren't a criminal.


you need citations to support your fantasy narrative
 
2014-04-10 02:17:45 PM  

R.A.Danny: So you are saying that we should take away rights without a conviction? Is this really what I am hearing?


If you want to phrase it that way, then yes, I'm saying that we should remove the ability of known dangerous people to carry guns around, even when they haven't been convicted of a crime, as long as there is an appeals process in place that prevents those in authority from abusing this power.

Are you saying that we should make sure that people who are known to be dangerous have the right to carry a gun around with them at all times?
 
2014-04-10 02:18:00 PM  

Doom MD: ox45tallboy: Doom MD: The burden of proof is on you.

And no, drug dealers are not getting ccw permits and registering handguns to themselves. If you're carrying meth all day what is the point? Why would you draw attention to yourself? Yet another proposal of yours engineered out of fanciful thinking.

Because as anyone not completely on the side of the law knows, the way to minimize any risk of getting caught is to only break one law at a time. CCW doesn't call attention to yourself, instead it deflects attention because any cop that runs your plates knows that you aren't a criminal.

you need citations to support your fantasy narrative


I think he's just spinning in his filth now.
 
2014-04-10 02:20:01 PM  

ox45tallboy: R.A.Danny: So you are saying that we should take away rights without a conviction? Is this really what I am hearing?

If you want to phrase it that way, then yes, I'm saying that we should remove the ability of known dangerous people to carry guns around, even when they haven't been convicted of a crime, as long as there is an appeals process in place that prevents those in authority from abusing this power.

Are you saying that we should make sure that people who are known to be dangerous have the right to carry a gun around with them at all times?


we should definitely allow the government to limit the rights of undesirables with no actual evidence of wrong-doing. What could go wrong?
 
2014-04-10 02:21:41 PM  

R.A.Danny: Doom MD: ox45tallboy: Doom MD: The burden of proof is on you.

And no, drug dealers are not getting ccw permits and registering handguns to themselves. If you're carrying meth all day what is the point? Why would you draw attention to yourself? Yet another proposal of yours engineered out of fanciful thinking.

Because as anyone not completely on the side of the law knows, the way to minimize any risk of getting caught is to only break one law at a time. CCW doesn't call attention to yourself, instead it deflects attention because any cop that runs your plates knows that you aren't a criminal.

you need citations to support your fantasy narrative

I think he's just spinning in his filth now.


he's so scared of guns he's basically proposed bringing back the third reich after nationalizing the firearm industry. Somehow this will improve society.
 
2014-04-10 02:22:36 PM  

Doom MD: we should definitely allow the government to limit the rights of undesirables with no actual evidence of wrong-doing. What could go wrong?


Yeah, I'm just staggered by this. I only thought Feinstein had this much contempt for America.
 
2014-04-10 02:23:09 PM  

AltheaToldMe: See how easy that is to converse without being derogatory.


Yeah, I wish more people would do this. We're here to have a good time, and no one is really having a good time if everyone's getting all bent out of shape and calling names over lighthearted conversation. It's more important to talk to those you disagree with than it is to talk to those you agree with, but a person can't do that when they're calling names and making attacks.

And I really don't think that you and I are that far apart on this issue.
 
Displayed 50 of 722 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report