PDA

View Full Version : NOT ANOTHER GUN CONTROL THREAD


Tommycat
01-09-2013, 01:10 PM
Okay, so now that you opened it up, bear with me.

I would like to entertain ideas for how mass shootings could be avoided in the future, and to be honest, I only see one solution that would actually work. That is as the NRA has said, have someone armed there to stop them.

Lets run through the reasons gun control will NOT work.
Make guns illegal for everyone: Aside from the fact that the majority of gun owners are simply law abiding citizens who you are now punishing for no reason at all, the real problem is that there is no way to get rid of all of them. Lets assume that a really high percentage of legal gun owners just roll over and turn in their guns. Say 99%. The remaining percentage of 1% means at a minimum of 3million privately held firearms will remain. Guns last a long time. I still have my great grandfather's octagon barrel repeating rifle from the 1800's. Soooo it really only stops the law abiding from owning the firearms that they may have had in their family for generations.

Get rid of "Assault Weapons" for everyone but cops: Why? Because they aren't good for self defense? As a buddy of mine who was in Iraq said, "I always kept my pistol on me. It's what I used to get to my rifle." A rifle is better than a shotgun. A shotgun is better than a pistol. Think about it, you are saying that the gun the media has been saying is a very effective killing tool would not be good for home defense?

Get rid of high capacity magazines: Sounds great and all, but there are an unknown number of high capacity magazines on the market, and in private hands. Most people I know who have one high capacity magazine have several. Magazines can last for decades at least. And if they wear out, it's not difficult to repair them. really. it's a simple box with a spring used to push rounds up to feed the weapon. Besides, even if you ban the high capacity magazines, the gunman just keeps firing and changing mags until he runs out of ammo, or someone with a gun stops him.

Get rid of these automatic weapons: Um... go online and try to purchase an automatic weapon. It's not cheap. It takes better than 6 months to get. approved for it, and even then they go through a very strict process to transfer one to you... Oh and the reason they are not cheap: they have been banned since the National Firearms Act of 1934. which required a tax stamp and registration. With the FOPA of 1986 they stopped allowing new automatic weapons to be registered.


Please spare me the "We don't want a shootout at the schools." It's already going to be a shooting gallery. How well can you shoot if someone is shooting back at you? And if the gunman turns to take on the guy with a gun, GREAT! He's not shooting at KIDS! Besides, that assumes that the gun owner who likely took the same kind of courses I took would ignore the fact that if he misses and hits someone else, he is STILL LIABLE FOR THEIR DEATH OR INJURY! The murdering b****** doesn't care about getting sued or prosecuted. HE'S ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW! The law abiding person with the gun MUST think about the possible repercussions of his shots missing. That's why even though (at least) 3 people had legal carry permits at the Giffords shooting none of them shot Laughner. One even came out of the store drew a bead on a guy with a gun, and didn't fire because he didn't know for a fact that the guy with the gun was the bad guy. Turns out it was one of the people holding Laughner. If you fire your weapon at someone and don't know for a fact that they are the bad guy, you WILL face charges. You WILL be arrested. And at a minimum you will end up with a felony which will preclude you ever owning a firearm again. It's not like the movies.

mimartin
01-10-2013, 01:49 AM
I am not for getting rid of guns... I am for getting rid of high capacity magazines, yes I understand what you are saying, but I am against making it easy for people to shop to kill. There is no reason for them, period end of story. If someone is too lazy to reload, then they should find another hobby.

What I think should be done is make gun owners responsible for their firearms. If my gun is taken from my home by a family member or anyone else that I allow access to my house and shoots up a school, mall, movie theater, etc, etc…. Then I should be held accountable both civilly and criminally. Oh you can cite the case of the mother was the first one dead in the recent school shooting, maybe if she knew she could be held criminally accountable for not locking up her weapons, she may be alive today. This really shouldn’t be a big deal, any responsible gun owner should already be keeping their weapons out of unwanted hands now.

Totenkopf
01-10-2013, 02:31 AM
One thing the shooting proves is that strict gun control laws don't prevent mass shootings or high crime rates (just look at Chicago or even DC). Not so sure banning high capacity magazines will make much difference either b/c criminals ignore the law anyway and can do end runs around the law via smuggling/black market (or becoming very adept at switching out clips very quickly). That said, you both make very legitimate points. I see no reason responsible law abiding gun owners should be penalized b/c of some crackpot, but neither should they have a big problem w/being extremely careful to keep their weapons secured when they're not using them themselves (gun range, hunting, etc..).

mimartin
01-10-2013, 09:52 AM
I see no reason responsible law abiding gun owners should be penalized b/c of some crackpot, but neither should they have a big problem w/being extremely careful to keep their weapons secured when they're not using them themselves (gun range, hunting, etc..).

When the crackpot is someone they know and they were stupid enough to give access to a tool for mass murder then they deserve to be held accountable. We are each responsible for our own freedom and rights and if that person does not have that right because of mental illness, felony conviction or age, then we are responsible for keeping our freedom out of their hands so they don’t violate someone else’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Besides if you have a law stating they are responsible to keep their gun out of such hands and they violate that law, then they are not law aiding gun owners any longer.

People love saying guns are just a tool. Well a car is just a tool too and in the wrong hands a car can be used to murder too. If you allow access to your car to someone that does not have the legal capacity to operate it and they kill someone else, then you can be held legally and criminally responsible. What is the difference if you consider firearm just tools to?

Tommycat
01-10-2013, 05:04 PM
My point about the mags is that it doesn't stop the killing. the only thing that stopped the killing when the bad guy stopped shooting. He fired hundreds of rounds. that means he changed magazines multiple times. And as I said before, There are hundreds of millions of magazines out there. Good luck getting rid of those. I have a few magazines from WWII that still function like new.

I agree that gun owners should take more responsibility for their firearms. The problem is where you draw the line. If my car is stolen and someone uses it to run someone down, I'm not liable. If I could I'd rather keep my primary firearms on me at all times. The problem is all the "Gun free zones" that prevent me from keeping control of them. A police officer friend just had her car broken in to and her weapon stolen from it while she was in a "Gun Free" establishment(she didn't want to make a scene and all that, just get in, get her groceries and get out). We cannot maintain control of our firearms all the time if we cannot carry them all the time. Even a safe. I Know of a few people who had their safe stolen from their house. One they even broke the slab.

mimartin
01-10-2013, 06:47 PM
My point about the mags is that it doesn't stop the killing. the only thing that stopped the killing when the bad guy stopped shooting. He fired hundreds of rounds. that means he changed magazines multiple times. And as I said before, There are hundreds of millions of magazines out there. Good luck getting rid of those. I have a few magazines from WWII that still function like new. SO what? I agree with you they are out there, we are not going to get rid of them anytime soon, but there is no reason to make it easy for someone planning mass murder, make them at least have to do some work to find them. I am also under the impression that lower magazine capacity could save lives. I know personally I am more like to attack someone reloading rather than attacking someone shooting me in the face. Also think my chances of success would be likely better while they are not shooting me.

I agree that gun owners should take more responsibility for their firearms. The problem is where you draw the line. If my car is stolen and someone uses it to run someone down, I'm not liable. If I could I'd rather keep my primary firearms on me at all times. The problem is all the "Gun free zones" that prevent me from keeping control of them. A police officer friend just had her car broken in to and her weapon stolen from it while she was in a "Gun Free" establishment(she didn't want to make a scene and all that, just get in, get her groceries and get out). We cannot maintain control of our firearms all the time if we cannot carry them all the time. Even a safe. I Know of a few people who had their safe stolen from their house. One they even broke the slab. Yes nothing is foolproof. Stuff can get stolen, but there is a big difference between having something locked up in a safe, closet or car than having easy access setting in the open in the family room or under a pillow in the master bedroom. Someone breaks into the house and steals the weapon locked up in the house, then no you are not liable. Someone that lives in the house or has legal access to the house takes the gun from the house then you should legally responsible, even possible criminally (provided there was some legal reason (mental illness felony, age) that the person should not have had access to the weapon.

You pretty much answered your own question with the car example. You are not liable if it is stolen. However if you leave the keys on the kitchen table and your 5 year gets the keys starts the car, throws in in reverse and backs through the neighbors house. Then you are legally liable.

Totenkopf
01-10-2013, 08:33 PM
When the crackpot is someone they know and they were stupid enough to give access to a tool for mass murder then they deserve to be held accountable. We are each responsible for our own freedom and rights and if that person does not have that right because of mental illness, felony conviction or age, then we are responsible for keeping our freedom out of their hands so they don’t violate someone else’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Besides if you have a law stating they are responsible to keep their gun out of such hands and they violate that law, then they are not law aiding gun owners any longer.

People love saying guns are just a tool. Well a car is just a tool too and in the wrong hands a car can be used to murder too. If you allow access to your car to someone that does not have the legal capacity to operate it and they kill someone else, then you can be held legally and criminally responsible. What is the difference if you consider firearm just tools to?

I meant law abiding gun owners collectively, not merely the "victim" of said crackpot. (ie. b/c someone in one state is lax does not mean people elsewhere should have their rights proscribed). Otherwise, as I basically indicated, we're pretty much in agreement on that point (personal responsibility).

mimartin
01-10-2013, 10:57 PM
I meant law abiding gun owners collectively, not merely the "victim" of said crackpot I would hardly call the people that allowed the crackpot access to the gun the "victim," I can feel sorry for them, but to me the true victim are the innocents that got murdered by a gun they allowed access to.

Tommycat
01-11-2013, 06:59 PM
I would hardly call the people that allowed the crackpot access to the gun the "victim," I can feel sorry for them, but to me the true victim are the innocents that got murdered by a gun they allowed access to.

On this we can agree. If anything I would call her an unwilling accomplice. She KNEW she had a problem with Adam. She was in the process of forcibly committing him. But she still recklessly allowed him access to the firearms.

As to your assumption that you would jump him: He had more than one firearm. Oh and just to be clear, the higher capacity mags tend to jam a lot more. That's what the guy in portalnd found.

I just feel that the whole gun debate is a bit like some drunk driver goes on a bender all night, and crashes his pickup into a school bus killing a bunch of kids, and suddenly we're talking about banning the pickup and making all other drivers have a breathalyzer interlock device in their cars.

Totenkopf
01-11-2013, 07:20 PM
@mim--if I meant they were really victims, I wouldn't have used the ""s around the word. It's safe to say that the three of us pretty much agree that gun owners should be very aware of where their weapons are and that they're properly secured and stored when not in use.

I just feel that the whole gun debate is a bit like some drunk driver goes on a bender all night, and crashes his pickup into a school bus killing a bunch of kids, and suddenly we're talking about banning the pickup and making all other drivers have a breathalyzer interlock device in their cars.

Nicely put.

mimartin
01-11-2013, 10:17 PM
One of the things that annoys me slightly by the public debate is people trying to point to Chicago and say gun control does not work. Sorry that is completely a bogus cop-out. Chicago does not work because criminals still get guns from neighboring towns. The use straw purchases, CNN did a story last night and the idiot talking heads went straight to they did not point out that straw purchases are illegal since the 1960's. So what? The problem with the law is all you have to say is the gun was stolen after you purchased it should the weapon be traced back to you after a crime or murder. So if you are so irresponsible to not report the theft of a deadly weapon, then you are not responsible enough to own a weapon. That person is either a criminal or so stupid that they are a danger to them-self and society. Chicago Superintendent wants make a state law that you have to report a theft of a deadly weapon (something that is just stupid to even be necessary), but the NRA is against this as it restricts the gun owners rights and you can't trust the Superintendent since he is from New York (and we all know how they are). That was they last straw for me, I remember when the NRA was for responsible gun ownership, now they are just give everyone a gun and let the gun god sort it out. I LOL when they said something about wanting to talk about protecting children. Yeah arm the 7 year olds was probably at the top of their list.

Totenkopf
01-12-2013, 04:29 AM
Pointing to such things as "gun free zones" and cities with strict gun control laws as being ineffective isn't a bogus cop-out. Ultimately, criminals don't care what laws you come up with or where you designate gun free zones b/c they just don't give a damn. Still, I'd agree that opposition to even some common sense rules is daft. The only reason I can think of off the top of my head for not reporting a stolen weapon is that you might be incriminating yourself for criminal negligence and wish to spare yourself the embarrassment. Of course if/when said weapon shows up in a criminal investigation, embarrassment will be the least of your worries.

mimartin
01-12-2013, 11:04 AM
Pointing to such things as "gun free zones" and cities with strict gun control laws as being ineffective isn't a bogus cop-out. Ultimately, criminals don't care what laws you come up with or where you designate gun free zones b/c they just don't give a damn. Still, I'd agree that opposition to even some common sense rules is daft. The only reason I can think of off the top of my head for not reporting a stolen weapon is that you might be incriminating yourself for criminal negligence and wish to spare yourself the embarrassment. Of course if/when said weapon shows up in a criminal investigation, embarrassment will be the least of your worries.

Pointing it out when you know the reason the gun free zone does work is because other area don't enforce their own rules is bogus. It isn't that Chicago rules don't work, it is that the surrounding areas that don't enforce federal laws at all. It is a loophole and it isn't about embarrassement or worry, because with the loophole their is no embarrassement or worry, you say it was stolen way back when and you did not report it and you get a get out of jail scott free card. It also is not about being a innoccent gun owner, it is being a low life criminal that is a accessory to a crime even murder because of suppling guns to criminals for profit.

Funny thing you can say it is a loophole it can't be enforces, but the NRA saying they don't want to close the loophole, sounds to me like they support giving criminals guns and thus support the Chicago murder rate and why not it support the advertisment to sell more guns elsewhere. All about the money to hell with human life.

Totenkopf
01-12-2013, 11:53 AM
The reason a lot of "gun free zones" don't work is not b/c law abiding citizens generally ignore them. Recognizing that isn't bogus, so we'll just have to disagree on that general point. Again, it comes down to the criminals. Society can make all the rules it wants, but making rules is all it will be (and we're not merely talking about the example you laid out above). Btw, that doesn't mean you don't have laws or that you don't enforce the ones already on the books. It's just ironic that areas in the US w/very strict gun laws often have higher violent gun crime rates.

As to the loophole in question, unless the "low level accessory" is actually buying guns and then selling them on the black market for profit and using the loophole as a get-out-of-jail free card, then why wouldn't they initially report the stolen firearm in the first place (which is what my point about embarrassment was addressing)?

mimartin
01-12-2013, 01:33 PM
yeah wasn't talking about rules, big difference between laws and rules. When you disreguard a law then you are no longer a law abiding citizens, you are a low life criminal.

But whatever, typical people find ways around laws and then people point out it doesn't work because it means more profits, after all life is cheap. Funny thing the people that think breaking these laws are fine are the same ones that think it is terrible that immigration laws are bent and broken. Law is law, and both should be enforced. Someone breaks the law then they are criminals plan and simple.

Totenkopf
01-12-2013, 07:15 PM
Usually, when society makes rules.....they're called laws. But am I to take it from your response that anyone who disobeys any laws is a low life criminal? Also, since you bring it up, might be interesting to find out how many rabid gun opponents prefer looking the other way on immigration violations...... ;)

mimartin
01-12-2013, 08:09 PM
Usually, when society makes rules.....they're called laws. But am I to take it from your response that anyone who disobeys any laws is a low life criminal? Nothing ever ever that black and white, but if we are talking about buying guns for profit to sale to criminals, then yes.

Rule: keep off grass

Law: Don't murder or buy guns for murders so they can murder.

Totenkopf
01-14-2013, 01:33 AM
Laws are still nothing more than rules about what you're allowed to do or not according to the society you live in. All you can really hope for is that whatever laws are passed both make sense and are enforceable. Making laws to look you're doing something is at best farcical. The Assault Weapons ban of the mid 90's did nothing to stop Columbine. :giveup:

mimartin
01-14-2013, 10:48 AM
No it did not stop Columbine.... another one of the give everyone gun aguments that I will never understand...No way short of going back and taking everyone's assault weapon that is already on the market would stop all murders with assault weapons. NRA loves to point this and other gun laws out should they do not work when they were the ones that lobbied (paidoff) Washington to make sure any gun law passed is so weak that it couldn't possibly work.

Taft Union High School had a armed guard, but the armed guard didn't stop the school shooting there either (see it works both ways when people use 1/2 truths and misinformation to make their point).

Another one of my favorite auguments out of the gun nuts (trust me only a gun nut would make this argument) is we need assualt weapons to defend ourselves from the government. Word of advice, if it ever comes to the point that you have to defend yourself against a US military soldier, put down the weapon or you will die. Our greatest protection against a government take over, is we the people are the government and we the people are the military. People that think they need assault weapons to stand up against our troops shouldn't be allowed to own weapons, they are too stupid and a danger to their ownself.

Tommycat
01-14-2013, 01:55 PM
Um the Taft guard was out that day.

Also, I heard that the majority of the deaths in Aurora were caused by the shotgun he was carrying. Even if that isn't true, I can pretty much prove that a shotgun can be significantly more deadly than an AR-15. Especially in close quarters like a theater or school.

In all honesty, with roughly 90million gun owners, and 1.4 million soldiers, If 1 in 10 kills the people trying to take the guns, gun owners still win. That's also assuming that soldiers would fire on civilians and family members. That's also assuming that the soldiers and pilots could accept killing those in the US. And to be frank, it's to defend against a tyrannical government. Be it our own or another.

The one I laugh at is the anti gunners saying that there is no need for an AR-15 for home defense. First off it ignores a couple things. First is that either it's a deadly weapon that is efficient at killing, and therefore a useful tool for home defense, or it's not effective, and there is no reason to ban it. The advantage of an AR is really for the lighter frame users(aka women). While a shotgun is my preferred home defense firearm, it is significantly easier for my girlfriend to carry aim and shoot the lighter AR-15. The second thing they don't realize is that for home defense, PISTOLS SUCK! Seriously. If I could, I'd rather carry a rifle all day than a pistol. Pistols are only good for being concealed. Use your pistol to get to your shotgun or rifle. Use your shotgun to get to your rifle.

I think I would be okay with all sales having to go through a background check at gun shows(That's already the case in Florida). The problem comes when talking about private sales outside of the gun show. There's really no way to regulate that. It also makes it more difficult to pass a firearm down to your kids after your death. I may not have gotten my great grandfather's rifle had the restrictions been in place that Feinstein wants.

And really, why go after "assault weapons" anyway. Since the gun ban was lifted on "Assault Weapons" there have been a grand total of less than 500 murders committed with an "Assault Weapon." That's 8 years worth of murders, and it doesn't even equal the number of murders committed in Chicago last year. It's less than the number of murders committed with a hammer. The real reason for the ban is pretty obvious. It was even stated by Feinstein that she wanted a total ban on all guns, and the AWB was the first step.

mimartin
01-14-2013, 02:37 PM
Um the Taft guard was out that day. I know that, why do you think I pointed out it was a 1/2 truth. I was pointing out both sides can use half/truths (lies) to support their cause and it is doing nothing at all to limit these types of murder. Open honest discussion and honest implication of common sense laws can save lives, but no law or amount of weapons will end this type of violence. If one nut job decides to murder people, they will. Armed guards, no guns, armed teachers, no assault weapons, no clips... so on and so on, nothing will stop it. Even if you locked up all nut jobs, someone would fall through the cracks. Nothing will stop it. So to me, the goal should be limiting the magnitude of the events and the ease in which people pull off these events.

There were "23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000" So to me, not everyone that qualifies to own a firearm, should be armed. To me owning a firearm is a great responsibility and as such it should be treated with respect. You arm all teachers, mall worker and everyone else working in public areas, you think the chances of accidental shooting and deaths go up or down? I am sure we can all think of many people that could pass the gun requirements, but have no business having a drivers license much less a firearm.

In all honesty, with roughly 90million gun owners, and 1.4 million soldiers, If 1 in 10 kills the people trying to take the guns, gun owners still win. That's also assuming that soldiers would fire on civilians and family members. That's also assuming that the soldiers and pilots could accept killing those in the US. And to be frank, it's to defend against a tyrannical government. Be it our own or another. Yeah, guns would work wonders against tanks, aircraft, drones and everything else the military has to offer. You also lost my point (ignored it) I don't believe our military would attack our civilians and I also know of at least one of those 90 million gun owners that would not attack our soldiers who are sworn to protect me and uphold The Constitution. It is a stupid nonsensical argument on why we should have assault weapons. Saying I like using them for target practice or home protection is a valid reason, saying I need them to protect us against our own soldiers is idiotic.

Man with AR-15 goes up against a platoon of American Soldiers, man with AR-15 is dead.

Q
01-15-2013, 08:52 AM
People need to read up on the original intention of the Second Amendment. (http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm)

It should then become obvious as to why certain factions have been chipping away at it for nearly a century.

Tommycat
01-15-2013, 03:24 PM
Mim. Fine then, we should be allowed to purchase any weapon or vehicle our government can. Feel better? honestly when talking about out right civil war, there is no guarantee of how it would be fought. Tanks come rolling in they may find out how resourceful the rednecks can be.

Accidental shootings: Well, first off, that's why I would say they should be allowed to carry IF they have their CCW as that requires their willingness to own rather than forcing teachers to carry. Which by the way, I wouldn't mind if they tightened up the training requirements. I also feel that there should be a legal requirement that any place that has a sign that says "No Firearms Permitted" should have an armed guard to enforce that rule. Simply putting up the sign only covers the law abiding. If you disarm me, you take on the responsibility of protecting me.

Also, lets look at the truth behind the "Assault Weapon"
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

mimartin
01-15-2013, 05:42 PM
Mim. Fine then, we should be allowed to purchase any weapon or vehicle our government can. Feel better? So you are saying it is ok for me to own nuclear weapons, but it is not alright for a foreign country to own them? Or are you now saying you support Iran and North Korea’s right to have nuclear weapons?
Putting words in others mouth can work both ways, because I am not saying we should have the same weapons as the government. I am saying that assault weapons would be useless in protecting us from a government takeover. Just because Billy Bob watched a couple john wayne movies, does not make them a expert at going against trained soldiers.

I never said anything of the kind. I haven't said people should not have assault weapons. I just said if someone is stupid enough to want an assault weapon (since it is a useless overprice weapon) at least give a valid reason and quit spouting off stupidity. I even wrote; I want to use it for target practice or I want it for home protection are valid reasons. These idiot gun nuts just need to stop making people think all gun owners are stupid and paranoid idiots. In other works the NRA needs to get better people in front of the camera.

Accidental shootings: Well, first off, that's why I would say they should be allowed to carry IF they have their CCW as that requires their willingness to own rather than forcing teachers to carry. Which by the way, I wouldn't mind if they tightened up the training requirements. CCW is not a magic pill. People with CCW still have weapons involved in accidental shootings.

I also feel that there should be a legal requirement that any place that has a sign that says "No Firearms Permitted" should have an armed guard to enforce that rule. Simply putting up the sign only covers the law abiding. If you disarm me, you take on the responsibility of protecting me.Why? If you don’t like it, then don’t go into those areas. It isn’t rocket science and this is not Beirut.

This is another of those things that has been bugging me in the news lately. I am not trying to take away anyone’s weapon. Like I have said before I am a gun owner. I am actually legally armed at the moment. However, if I go somewhere that has a “No Firearms Permitted” I will unarm. I am not trying to shove my belief structure down anyone’s throat and the only people responsible for a shooting is the person pulling the trigger and the person responsible for the firearm (if they have a legal or criminal responsibility would depend on the circumstances).
Also, lets look at the truth behind the "Assault Weapon"
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
No…Link doesn’t work, but is this part of the debate, because you and Totenkopf seem to agree on this and I don’t care. Assault Weapon are a useless weapon in my opinion. They are not good for hunting and IMO useless for home protection. That was an opinion given to me by a US Marine and a former Navy Seal (notice I did not call the Marine former). No article is going to change my mind when my father and uncle taught me otherwise over years. I have recently shot an AR-15 former army friend bought since he believes Obama will take away his guns. Nothing changed my mind from first hand contact. At close enough range (as in a home) I would much rather have the shotgun over the AR-15 in my house.

My only thing suggestion on the subject is people should be responsible for their firearms. However, I seemed to have been meet with people have the right to guns…no matter what. Only thing I am convinced of now is I will support businesses that have signs that say no firearms. At least there I only have to worry about nut cases and criminals shooting me instead of idiots that think they are going to save America.

Tommycat
01-15-2013, 10:11 PM
Actually mimartin, I was saying it. And actually, I say DISARM OUR GOVERNMENT! If we cannot have it, the government shouldn't either. And that would include Nukes. And heck, if someone wants to buy a $5 billion nuclear powered submarine(I could see Larry Ellison wanting one)

I already pointed out why an "Assault Weapon" is actually pretty good for home defense. But let me explain that a bit better, as I know I can sometimes ramble and the point can be lost.

Reasons for an AR-15 for home defense
A rifle is more accurate than a pistol.
The .223 round is effective at stopping a threat.
The chances of over-penetration are lower than many pistol rounds
The AR-15 can carry more rounds should there be more than one attacker.
Should you have to move, you have even more control of your firearm.
Even though you are using it as a rifle, it actually sticks out less than a pistol.
Unlike a shotgun you can place your shots more carefully.
The AR-15 is light enough for a woman to easily use.
Because I can't afford an assault rifle (http://www.nfasales.com/machineguns.htm).

As for the CCW: I should have explained that it's a matter of where you get them right now. Some places get the CCW as a free prize in a Cracker Jack's box. There should be a bit more to the training and more consistent training at that. I would even be fine with requiring that persons wishing to carry on their school grounds be required to undertake even further training. Right now, the schools are a great place to practice shooting at moving targets without fear of anyone shooting back. Ask yourself why there have never been any mass shootings at a gun show. There are THOUSANDS of guns there. And before the shooting I went to a gun show and there were more than a thousand AR-15's for sale and being carried.

mimartin
01-16-2013, 12:17 AM
Actually mimartin, I was saying it. And actually, I say DISARM OUR GOVERNMENT! If we cannot have it, the government shouldn't either. And that would include Nukes. And heck, if someone wants to buy a $5 billion nuclear powered submarine(I could see Larry Ellison wanting one)
You lost me...this has gone from what I thought was serious discussion, to nonsensical. If I want to be exposed to these types of arguments I will just listen to Rush, Hanity, or foxnews...sounds like their talking points.

I never said a pistol was better than a AR-15. I said in my opinion a assualt weapon is crap for home defense. I have three pistols, but that isn't what I will grab if someone breaks into my home.

Totenkopf
01-16-2013, 01:52 AM
The problem with this debate in the end is symbolism over substance. NY just passed a very restrictive gun control law that limits the number of bullets per mag/clip to be only 7. How many criminals are gonna give a rat's ass what these laws say? Those who'd trade their liberty for false promises of security deserve neither and will lose both. FTR, lest my position be twisted out of context, I'm fine with certain regulations (reqs to take gun safety courses, that people have to safely store their guns, etc..). I just recognize that creating laws that often go unenforced/are unenforceable is symbolic bs meant to appeal to emotion and little else. Btw, I'm less worried about some militia guy shooting me in a gun free zone like the post office than I am about a drunken illegal hitting me when I'm on the road.

Tommycat
01-16-2013, 02:57 AM
You lost me...this has gone from what I thought was serious discussion, to nonsensical. If I want to be exposed to these types of arguments I will just listen to Rush, Hanity, or foxnews...sounds like their talking points.

I never said a pistol was better than a AR-15. I said in my opinion a assualt weapon is crap for home defense. I have three pistols, but that isn't what I will grab if someone breaks into my home.

Maybe I didn't explain it very well. I do not believe that our government should have things you would not trust the common person with. And that would include nuclear devices. I would not want a person to have one of those, and don't feel that the government should either. Tanks, and jets, why not? Heck, we have all those aging A-10's that might actually be fun to fly(It could also help with our budget:D ). Look at the people in our government. Would you really call them smart? Who's finger would you trust on the trigger, yours or GW?

I personally prefer a shotgun for home defense, but it is far easier for my girlfriend to wield the AR than the shotgun. Plus the recoil on it is far less than the shottie. She's WAAAY more accurate. And she doesn't end up with a bruise.

Q
01-16-2013, 12:33 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159830/debt-gov-dysfunction-rise-top-americans-issue-list.aspx

*whistles innocently*


Cliffs for the lazy:
Apparently the American people don't give two ****s about gun control, but the politicians sure do. I wonder why. Could this all be an elaborate ruse to distract the citizenry's attention away from the lousy job that they're doing while making yet another blatant power-grab that benefits no one but them (and the criminals, too, but hey, what's the difference :p)?
/tinfoil

Tommycat
01-17-2013, 12:33 PM
NRA says possibly put guards in schools: OHMYGOD EVILS
Obama says maybe put guards in schools: *Cheering fanfare*

Feinstein uses tragedy to push antigun legislation she's been trying to push for years: antigunners cheer
NRA says maybe we should look deeper at the causes: OHMYGOD You're politicizing the murder of 20 innocent kids.

Sometimes I just wish we could be two separate countries.....

mimartin
01-17-2013, 01:22 PM
NRA says lock up those with mental problem (even though they have done nothing wrong, but only a doctor says they could), so we take away someone's freedom on the chance they could be a danger to themselves or others because people, who are really too irresponsible to own a gun, don't want to act like responsible adults and keep their weapons out of the hands of criminals, children and those with mental issues. Oh the inconvenience I have to report something stolen or I have to preform a backgroup check and not be able to sell my gun to this two time loser.

To hell with "due process" lock them up.

Tommycat
01-17-2013, 04:56 PM
NRA says lock up those with mental problem (even though they have done nothing wrong, but only a doctor says they could), so we take away someone's freedom on the chance they could be a danger to themselves or others because people, who are really too irresponsible to own a gun, don't want to act like responsible adults and keep their weapons out of the hands of criminals, children and those with mental issues. Oh the inconvenience I have to report something stolen or I have to preform a backgroup check and not be able to sell my gun to this two time loser.

To hell with "due process" lock them up.

That would work a heck of a lot better than getting rid of "Assault Weapons." Of course we both know the NRA did not say that, but whatever. They did say have a database of those that ARE mentally ill and violent. Interestingly the same thing Obama wanted to do(cue fanfare). Maybe you confused the statements the NRA said. They wanted to lock up violent criminals. And they also wanted to get the mentally ill the help they need.

mimartin
01-17-2013, 05:03 PM
That would work a heck of a lot better than getting rid of "Assault Weapons." Of course we both know the NRA did not say that, but whatever.
I know for darn sure a idiot representive of the NRA did say that. It was a idiot, but so are most of their talking heads.


I hadn't thought of this, someone pointed it out to me, 1. I wish someone would have been armed at Fort Hood to stop that mass shooting. 2. There was a armed guard a Columbine....hmmm seems this isn't the rainbow and puppy dog fix the NRA seem to making it out to be. Don't believe me - Neil Gardner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci7cUaJ80gs)

Tommycat
01-17-2013, 07:06 PM
I know for darn sure a idiot representive of the NRA did say that. It was a idiot, but so are most of their talking heads.


I hadn't thought of this, someone pointed it out to me, 1. I wish someone would have been armed at Fort Hood to stop that mass shooting. 2. There was a armed guard a Columbine....hmmm seems this isn't the rainbow and puppy dog fix the NRA seem to making it out to be. Don't believe me - Neil Gardner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci7cUaJ80gs)
As for the quote, I would like a confirmation of it. Who said to lock up the mentally ill.

You ever been on a military base? Ever tried to carry a firearm on a military base? Thanks to the higher ups, only a few people are allowed and only in specific areas for their duties. Military personnel are no better off on a base than most civilians are waiting on the police. Just to be clear on that one.

As for Columbine: According to the CNN reports of that day, and official reports, he DID in fact save several dozen lives. even though he started from OFF CAMPUS and had to rush from the "smoker's pit" to the scene of the shooting.

But don't worry, it was the AR-15's that they were carrying that made their killing so easy. Just like Cho used his AR-15. wait....

mimartin
01-17-2013, 08:53 PM
As for the quote, I would like a confirmation of it. Who said to lock up the mentally ill. I heard it on the radio...I am not going to look it up. I could careless if you have your confirmation or not.

Even if I were to find it you would spin it back to assualt weapons, which I have already said I could careless either way about.

Oh and I have been on a miltary base many, many times...as a matter of fact I have been in Fort Hood many times. Best friend was stationed there for about 5 years. I have also seen a armed officer walk up to me and ask me why I was looking at a radio in a Humvee. Was a little scared until he saw that my friend everything was fine. It may be a miltary base, but it is still in the heart of Texas.

Tommycat
01-18-2013, 03:14 AM
I heard it on the radio...I am not going to look it up. I could careless if you have your confirmation or not.

Even if I were to find it you would spin it back to assualt weapons, which I have already said I could careless either way about.


Okay, well I was just trying to see if it was you mistaking what LaPierre said for something else. I know his phrasing was something like "Lock up criminals and get the treatment for the mentally ill." Which I would understand the mistaken association. But since you're not willing to say who it was, nor when, nor provide any kind of verification... whatever.

But you were right in your post regarding the only way to get things done is through honest open talks. The problem is(much as I have demonstrated) people are often too heightened and tense to have a rational discussion. Thus far, it's been too much of a blame game. I mean we're just hearing that the Aurora shooter's "High Capacity Magazine" jammed on him(anyone who's used them knows it happens more frequently) so he switched to murdering people with the shotgun. The point is it is not what kind of weapon, but WHO gets the weapon. Blaming the firearm is about the same as LaPierre blaming video games and movies. For some it may trigger something. But we know almost nothing about the causes of the 3(recent) shootings. When we stop pointing the fingers, we might see the truth. I feel that schools SHOULD have someone to protect the children. I mean we have a cop at almost every Walmart all the time. Perhaps we could maybe protect our kids as well as Walmart?

mimartin
01-18-2013, 09:47 AM
The point is it is not what kind of weapon, but WHO gets the weapon.I agree with that... especially the WHO gets the weapon. And when the system and the gunowner allows them to get the weapon. They are also responsible for the murders. In the case of Sandy Brook, Virginia Tech shooting and Columbine these could have been limited had somone acted like responsible gun owners.

No I need not misunderstand anything. I am not stuid, I heard it on a rightwing nut job talk radio talk show. hanity, rush, savage, michael berry....not sure which one and I am not going to waste my time looking because at least in the case of rush I know they edit their transscripts.

Tommycat
01-18-2013, 11:35 AM
I agree with that... And when the system and the gunowner allows them to get the weapon. They are also responsible for the murders. In the case of Sandy Brook, Virginia Tech shooting and Columbine these could have been limited had somone acted like responsible gun owners.

No I need not misunderstand anything. I am not stuid, I heard it on a rightwing nut job talk radio talk show. hanity, rush, savage, michael berry....not sure which one and I am not going to waste my time looking because at least in the case of rush I know they edit their transscripts.

The quote: Fair enough. That's probably why I never heard it. I don't listen to them.

Responsible gun owners: I think that most gun owners would agree that responsible gun ownership saves lives. If you have several firearms in the house, you NEED to have a safe. And that safe NEEDS to be bolted down. So what if you don't have kids. So what if you're the only one that lives there. BREAK IN'S HAPPEN! The problem with it, is enforcement. Adam Lanza's mother COULD have prevented the tragedy by following rule 5 of gun safety... ALWAYS maintain control of your firearm.

Actually, most of the accidents involving firearms require a violation of at least one firearm rule.
1 ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED. Never believe a firearm is not loaded, check it, and afterwards treat it as though it were loaded.
2 NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU SO NOT WANT TO DESTROY. That means don't point it at your friends even in jest.
3 KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO FIRE. Really. It's simple. A cop nearly blew the head off a subject because she was keying her mic and had her other finger on the trigger.
4 KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT'S AROUND IT. A buddy of mine was shooting and after he was done, he was cleaning up and that's when the quads raced past on the trail that was between where he was standing and where he set up his targets.
5 ALWAYS MAINTAIN CONTROL OF YOUR FIREARM. If you aren't using or carrying it, LOCK IT UP. I think we covered that.

Q
01-25-2013, 11:16 PM
It's more than a little hypocritical that the same administration that thought it was a good idea to "gunwalk" thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal) wants to prohibit legal ownership of the same type of weapons by law-abiding American citizens. :wonder:

Totenkopf
01-26-2013, 06:06 PM
You know the old saying.....Do as I say, not as I do. ;)

Tommycat
01-28-2013, 11:42 AM
It's more than a little hypocritical that the same administration that thought it was a good idea to "gunwalk" thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal) wants to prohibit legal ownership of the same type of weapons by law-abiding American citizens. :wonder:

No, that actually fits the idea that the firearms were able to be legally purchased here in the US by people who could pass the NICS check. What's hypocritical is that this administration sent Arms to Libyan Rebels (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) but thinks we shouldn't be able to purchase the same arms they GAVE AWAY.

Xavier1985
01-28-2013, 12:03 PM
america is a funny place, from an on looers point of view, they have taken their "right to bare arms" far too literal.. it was originally made for local militias in times of war and what have you, then twisted into a more self defense stance and justification to have a "arsenal" of weapons.. silly if you ask me.

if america insists on arming their citizens with little control (let's face it, gun control is disgraceful in the states) then make high rate of fire weapons and automatic weaponry illegal (sub machine guns, assault rifles etc) because if you want to defend your home, that is fair play.. but you only need a pistol or shotgun at best, just over kill to have an Uzi or M4 rifle or what ever they are. .

Just look at us n the UK, we have very strict laws and we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. Don't get me wrong, we still have the odd shooting but only once a decade or so and not 3 to 6 massacres a YEAR america seems to have due to poor gun control and poor mindsets to weapons.

Tommycat
01-28-2013, 03:49 PM
america is a funny place, from an on looers point of view, they have taken their "right to bare arms" far too literal.. it was originally made for local militias in times of war and what have you, then twisted into a more self defense stance and justification to have a "arsenal" of weapons.. silly if you ask me.

if america insists on arming their citizens with little control (let's face it, gun control is disgraceful in the states) then make high rate of fire weapons and automatic weaponry illegal (sub machine guns, assault rifles etc) because if you want to defend your home, that is fair play.. but you only need a pistol or shotgun at best, just over kill to have an Uzi or M4 rifle or what ever they are. .

Just look at us n the UK, we have very strict laws and we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. Don't get me wrong, we still have the odd shooting but only once a decade or so and not 3 to 6 massacres a YEAR america seems to have due to poor gun control and poor mindsets to weapons.

You actually have a higher violent crime rate(per capita) than we do. Sure, if you eliminate guns, gun crime should go down. But that doesn't mean the crime stops. In fact according to your own government, rapes have gone up since the ban. Yes, gun crime went down. But you already had a lower gun crime rate than we did in the US. How many school shootings did you have BEFORE your ban. And guess what. Your gun crime went town 30% since your ban. OUR gun crime went down by 30% in the same time period. Your "Violent crime" went up during that time. Ours went down.


Oh and you are misinterpreting the meaning of the second. Read our supreme court ruling DC V Heller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html). It holds that the opening portion of the second was not a requisite for the second part. The second was put in for the same reason the third was put in. At the time the British government was preventing those persons from arming themselves, and forcing citizens in the colonies to quarter troops in their homes(and give up their crops, food, daughters etc.). King George was not very nice to the colonies. And the people there decided they had had enough and voiced their opinions. Keep in mind that the cannons used were also owned by private citizens, not connected with the military. So it was NOT specifically requiring militias, and DID cover for self defense... Oh and if you think a shotgun works for everyone, You're a fool. Smaller framed persons have a harder time with a big bore firearm such as a shotgun.

And we do have over 20000 laws on the book regarding firearms. Nost of them are useless feel good bans like the ones in CT that did not stop the shooting. Automatic weapons have been illegal to sell any new ones since the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act) which put a stop to new tax stamps being issued for firearms listed on the National Firearms Act of 1934 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)(which included machine guns and automatic firearms, as well as rocket launchers, grenades, and a few other destructive devices). The only ones available for sale are too expensive for criminals to use. (http://www.nfasales.com/) They instead use illegally modified firearms like the AK-47's that were used during the North Hollywood Shootout that happened DURING the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban." The ones used in crimes are the illegally obtained ones. Generally stolen from Law Enforcement and the military.

Q
01-28-2013, 05:21 PM
america is a funny place, from an on looers point of view, they have taken their "right to bare arms" far too literal.. it was originally made for local militias in times of war and what have you, then twisted into a more self defense stance and justification to have a "arsenal" of weapons.. silly if you ask me.

if america insists on arming their citizens with little control (let's face it, gun control is disgraceful in the states) then make high rate of fire weapons and automatic weaponry illegal (sub machine guns, assault rifles etc) because if you want to defend your home, that is fair play.. but you only need a pistol or shotgun at best, just over kill to have an Uzi or M4 rifle or what ever they are. .

Just look at us n the UK, we have very strict laws and we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. Don't get me wrong, we still have the odd shooting but only once a decade or so and not 3 to 6 massacres a YEAR america seems to have due to poor gun control and poor mindsets to weapons.
Aaaand again:
People need to read up on the original intention of the Second Amendment. (http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm)
The founding fathers wanted us armed to prevent our government from pushing us around like yours does to you.

The US is not a socialist nanny state yet, though we seem to be getting closer all the time.

LDR
01-28-2013, 09:15 PM
I'll just throw my two cents here.

All empirical evidence – as well as plain old common sense – shows that gun control does not prevent violence and only leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless against it, whereas madmen and crooks could still obtain guns (well, most of them already get them illegally).

The Second Amendment clearly states: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And I'll just leave this (http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/32514-this-may-be-the-best-argument-for-the-second-amendment/) here.

Totenkopf
01-28-2013, 09:41 PM
I think a lot of the problem stems from 2 things: the misbegotten notion that making laws will protect you from those who care nothing for the law AND a desire to use govt to control the populace at some point down the road. If you disarm your populations, govt control becomes much easier.

Samuel Dravis
01-29-2013, 02:30 AM
It seems to me that increasing gun ownership restrictions makes a lot more sense for preventing suicides/crimes of passion than it does to prevent rampages.

I don't think it's too reasonable to base any laws on things which are so insignificant in terms of life loss as these rampages are. I feel the same about most terrorism; it simply isn't a big enough problem to justify the reaction it has obtained.

Mostly, I feel that if you have to reach for rare and emotional events like rampages to justify your political interests regarding gun control, you clearly are not looking in the right places for your reasons. If you want to ban guns to whatever extent, that's a perfectly legitimate goal-- but don't outright manipulate people who are hurting. It's crass and feels like going to someone's funeral so you can sell life insurance.

mimartin
01-29-2013, 01:45 PM
While I largely agree with you, I will point out both sides are doing manipulation and fear mongering to advanced their agenda.

I also think is disingenuous to point that gun control will does stop all violent crimes, when the same can be said about armed security does not stop these type of rampages. Nothing will stop crazies from killing if their mind is set on mass murder. The best you can hope for is limiting the number of victims while hoping your solution does not put more people in harm’s way.

Guns are not going away in this country, no matter what the extremist from either side tell you. Both parties love their gun too much, but that does not mean those in the middle of the debate can’t do things to ensure guns stay out of certain peoples (that are a known danger to themselves and others hands). Personally I would like to see guns take a little more effort to purchase than buying a BigMac. It is not invading someone's rights under the 2nd amendment to force them to be what the already should be in owning a gun, a responsible gun owners, with rights comes responsibilities.

Tommycat
01-29-2013, 02:18 PM
Well, I for one am all for background checks on all purchases at gun shows, but since I don't have access to do background checks for a private sale, I have a problem with regulating outside of that. Unless they have a web interface that allows you to do a quick check without having the FFL license, no way. Not that I sell a lot of firearms(in fact I still own nearly every firearm I have ever purchased) but IF I decide to sell my old 30-06 to someone else, I would like the ability to do so without dragging myself down to the gun dealer, waiting in the long line for them to do an NICS check on all the other guys selling the right way(while criminals will simply take money to "lose" their firearm). Keep in mind Lanza actually couldn't get a firearm. So he stole one.

mimartin
01-29-2013, 02:34 PM
I agree it should not be overly complicated, what I think should be stopped is people legally buy guns and then selling them to criminals, so a gun owner should be responsible for their gun, if your gun is "stolen" then you should have to report it to the police or face the consequences when it is used by some criminal killing someone in Chicago (or anywhere else). Let face it, people that buy guns for profit to sale to people that can not legally purchase a weapon are not only breaking federal laws today, but are also aiding and abetting for whatever crime their weapon is used for. However, they use their get out of jail card, it was stolen and profit from the blood money. Close that loop hole, but as far as I am concern the NRA is aiding and abetting because they want to protect the criminal activity.

Keep in mind Lanza actually couldn't get a firearm. So he stole one. He took a gun that he had regular access to from his mother. In this case, I would say the mother is responsible for giving easy access to a gun, her punishment did not fit the crime though, she paid with her life for her irresponsibility. Too bad, her irresponsibly gun ownership cost others their lives.

Tommycat
01-29-2013, 07:11 PM
How about we compromise then(something politicians are unwilling to really understand)? Make it a requirement that the original purchaser is held liable if the firearm he purchased is used in a crime(If he is unable to prove that he made a reasonable effort to secure the firearm, say it was not in a properly installed and locked safe), and that ALL sales must go through an FFL(for a background check). Lets also add in that if a person has had more than 3 incidents of their firearms being stolen, they are placed on the denied list for NICS. In exchange allow private ownership of machine guns again.

mimartin
01-29-2013, 10:14 PM
Lets also add in that if a person has had more than 3 incidents of their firearms being stolen, they are placed on the denied list for NICS I would go for that if instead of denied they are placed in prison for 10 years hard labor. You have to be joking… How is that a compromise? Someone may have assisted in murder and robbery by criminal activity and you want to just put them on the denied list after they do it 3 times. Sorry according to federal law now, from the 1960’s, they should be on the denied list after doing it the first time because they are a criminal. How is that a compromise? That would actually opening another loophole in the law as it stands now.

I would hold people to the reasonable person standard. In most states you must file a police report for any insurance claim involving theft or robbery. The courts have ruled that to be a reasonable standard. What is so difficult about reporting a theft loss? If your TV is stolen you would not call the police? Why is a firearm any different? I would really like to know what is so difficult about reporting a that a deadly weapon was stolen? You say a gun is a tool and I agree, if my band saw is stolen I will report it, what would make a "resonable person" not report a firearm stolen?

Xavier1985
01-30-2013, 04:41 AM
Aaaand again:

The founding fathers wanted us armed to prevent our government from pushing us around like yours does to you.

The US is not a socialist nanny state yet, though we seem to be getting closer all the time.

the usa is no different to any other western world country, except that is one of the youngest and feel like they have something to prove. We over here in the uk don't get pushed around any more or less than the americans do... this was true even back in the "founding father" days, just didn't want to pay the kings taxes, but they ended up paying their own tax, amusing.

i'll never be convinced of being pro-gun owner ship, especially arming people to the teeth, that is just immature and ignorant. if there is a problem with massacres, handing out more guns will not resolve the issue, it would just make it easier for the suspect to do what they will do.

i went to Vegas a few years ago, even the car valet people have pistols, how ridiculous, et they will be arming MacDonald's employees next. That is one of the most off putting things about the USA, their fetish for guns.

but as i said before, ban and make automatic and some semi automatic weapons, anyone who has an arsenal of weapons has intent, if you only wanted to own a weapon for protection, you would only need a small pistol or something to that extent. Anything bigger or more powerful and it goes beyond defence and into the realm of intent.

Totenkopf
01-30-2013, 06:08 AM
Intent to what, though? You're assuming that gun enthusiasts want to launch a revolution vs their govt? :raise:

Tommycat
01-30-2013, 11:59 AM
I would go for that if instead of denied they are placed in prison for 10 years hard labor. You have to be joking… How is that a compromise? Someone may have assisted in murder and robbery by criminal activity and you want to just put them on the denied list after they do it 3 times. Sorry according to federal law now, from the 1960’s, they should be on the denied list after doing it the first time because they are a criminal. How is that a compromise? That would actually opening another loophole in the law as it stands now.

I would hold people to the reasonable person standard. In most states you must file a police report for any insurance claim involving theft or robbery. The courts have ruled that to be a reasonable standard. What is so difficult about reporting a theft loss? If your TV is stolen you would not call the police? Why is a firearm any different? I would really like to know what is so difficult about reporting a that a deadly weapon was stolen? You say a gun is a tool and I agree, if my band saw is stolen I will report it, what would make a "resonable person" not report a firearm stolen?
You missed the parenthesis of the previous line. IF, even after they have made all reasonable efforts to secure their firearms(Locked in a properly installed safe when not in use), they have their firearms stolen three times THEN they are placed on the permanently denied list. It happened to a friend of mine. His gun safe was broken free from the foundation by the use of a nearby bulldozer. You would have him do 10 years hard labor for someone else wrapping a chain around his gun safe? Again, it's about REASONABLE EFFORT. It's not opening a loophole, in fact it's closing the current loophole. As it stands now, the guy simply reports that his guns were stolen from under his bed, and he's free to go buy more. Oh hey he bought more AK's. whoops stolen again. darn thieves. Buy more AK's Whoops stolen again. It's like they know he has them under his bed or something. In your haste to dismiss my post as not compromising, you must have missed this section.

Make it a requirement that the original purchaser is held liable if the firearm he purchased is used in a crime(If he is unable to prove that he made a reasonable effort to secure the firearm, say it was not in a properly installed and locked safe), and that ALL sales must go through an FFL(for a background check). Lets also add in that if a person has had more than 3 incidents of their firearms being stolen, they are placed on the denied list for NICS.

So that covered all of your reasoning.
1) Straw buyers cannot simply hand off their purchases to a buyer and claim their firearms were stolen without having to show an extreme effort was made to get them.
2) IF you buy a gun and it is used in a crime, YOU are liable. Which means that YOU MUST REPORT IT STOLEN BEFORE IT IS USED IN A CRIME! So I have no idea where you get off with that tangent about not reporting it stolen.
3) They cannot just sell it on the street and keep the money, as that sale HAS TO GO THROUGH AN FFL. That prevents people from saying, "Yeah I sold that to a dude I met at the gun show. What was his name? I dunno."

Of course this could all be a moot point anyway as the 3d printing technology gets better. You could print your own gun. Then there's relatively inexpensive CNC milling machines that could easily be adapted to make firearm frames(which are the only parts that have to go through an FFL). Ain't technology grand?

the usa is no different to any other western world country, except that is one of the youngest and feel like they have something to prove. We over here in the uk don't get pushed around any more or less than the americans do... this was true even back in the "founding father" days, just didn't want to pay the kings taxes, but they ended up paying their own tax, amusing.

i'll never be convinced of being pro-gun owner ship, especially arming people to the teeth, that is just immature and ignorant. if there is a problem with massacres, handing out more guns will not resolve the issue, it would just make it easier for the suspect to do what they will do.

i went to Vegas a few years ago, even the car valet people have pistols, how ridiculous, et they will be arming MacDonald's employees next. That is one of the most off putting things about the USA, their fetish for guns.

but as i said before, ban and make automatic and some semi automatic weapons, anyone who has an arsenal of weapons has intent, if you only wanted to own a weapon for protection, you would only need a small pistol or something to that extent. Anything bigger or more powerful and it goes beyond defence and into the realm of intent.
Um, life in the colonies wasn't exactly all roses and sunshine. We had to pay taxes on goods from England as well as having high tariffs on our goods. And look at the third amendment. It was put there because British troops could come into your home, eat your crops, slaughter your livestock and even have their way with your wife and daughter, and you couldn't do anything about it. While taxation gets the primary focus, it wasn't the only thing. And it was taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The colonies had NO SAY in Parliament. And they kept raising the taxes on things in the colonies, but we had no say in the matter.

Gun ownership does not cause massacres. The worst massacres in history were caused by means other than firearms. Bath Michigan. 38 children killed in a school. No gun was used. Weapon of choice? Dynamite. Oklahoma city. 168 souls, including 19 under 6. Weapon of choice? explosives(home made). And of course New York 9/11. 3000+ lost. Not a gun in sight. weapon of choice? Aircraft. Crazy people intent on killing massive numbers of people are far less concerned with the weapon they need than how to do the most damage.

Valets in Vegas had firearms? I never noticed that. Maybe it's because I don't let my knickers get all knotted because someone has a firearm. Or maybe it's because I rarely valet my car. But I would understand it, as they are sometimes in vehicles that are very expensive, and often have to run out to a darkened lot with the keys to that car in their hands.

And the whole "Arsenal" argument is just plain silly. A rifle is more accurate than a pistol. Plain and simple. A rifle also has less overspray than a shotgun. There are a ton of people who like to collect things. Some like firearms that look a certain way.
1 AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE REALLY HARD TO GET.
2 IF YOU HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE FEDS TO GET ONE THEY CAN RAID YOUR HOME AT ANY TIME.
3 YOU CANNOT BUY ONE THAT WAS REGISTERED AFTER 1 MAY 1986 UNLESS YOU ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT
4 THERE HAS BEEN ONE CRIME COMMITTED WITH A LEGALLY OBTAINED AUTOMATIC WEAPON BY A CIVILIAN SINCE 1934
(2 if you include the cop)
there... maybe NOW people will see it.

mimartin
01-30-2013, 12:41 PM
I am on that because the NRA is against requiring people to report stolen guns. Someone buys a gun for someone, it is used in a murder, police trace it back to person that bought it, they say it was stolen and case is done. That is way the system works now. Chicago is trying to get this changed, but the NRA is against it.

As to your friend, I am against that still, but for another reason. If he did what a reasonable person would have done in protecting his weapons and they were still stolen and he reported them stolen, then I would be against him not being able to purchasing more guns. Hell, he probably actually needs them for protection more than the rest of us and he did nothing wrong to have one of his rights taken away. He was responsible and others violated his rights, then government should not step in and further remove his rights. Only thing the 3 times would do is make more people not report stolen weapons until the police knocked on the door.

Tommycat
01-30-2013, 06:27 PM
I am on that because the NRA is against requiring people to report stolen guns. Someone buys a gun for someone, it is used in a murder, police trace it back to person that bought it, they say it was stolen and case is done. That is way the system works now. Chicago is trying to get this changed, but the NRA is against it.

As to your friend, I am against that still, but for another reason. If he did what a reasonable person would have done in protecting his weapons and they were still stolen and he reported them stolen, then I would be against him not being able to purchasing more guns. Hell, he probably actually needs them for protection more than the rest of us and he did nothing wrong to have one of his rights taken away. He was responsible and others violated his rights, then government should not step in and further remove his rights. Only thing the 3 times would do is make more people not report stolen weapons until the police knocked on the door.
And I said it was a compromise. You inferred it was NOT a compromise. Hence why I'm a little peeved at your response that supplanted the NRA stance over mine. I may be a member of the NRA, but that does not mean that I agree with everything they say. And I write them to tell them when I disagree. I disagree on their "NO" stance on background checks on all firearm sales. I disagree on not requiring persons to report stolen firearms. Though I agree in that I feel that we SHOULD be able to have any small arms that can be used to defend ourselves(note that does not extend to portable nukes, as even if you could CCW a nuke, you cannot use it to defend yourself from an attacker). US V Miller states we cannot have arms that have no military use, yet we are limited to not being able to use firearms that are used by the military?

Actually I believe that if you have those firearms stolen 3 times you must be doing something wrong. One time having your safe ripped from the foundation I can understand. 3 times becomes suspicious. Maybe have a timeframe. 3 times in a year? I mean if you end up setting up a method for allowing the straw buyers to set up a "Steal from me" house, then you have the same problem.

mimartin
01-30-2013, 06:56 PM
Actually I believe that if you have those firearms stolen 3 times you must be doing something wrong. One time having your safe ripped from the foundation I can understand. 3 times becomes suspicious. Maybe have a timeframe. 3 times in a year? I mean if you end up setting up a method for allowing the straw buyers to set up a "Steal from me" house, then you have the same problem.not always true... Let be honest certain area in the Nation like certain neighborhoods you are 10000 times more likely to shot yourself than to ever be robed or murdered by someone outside your family or friends. The only reason to have a weapon there is to for sports, hunting or to make up for other inadequacies in someone's life.

However, some live in neighborhoods that have extremely high crime rates where having a weapon could mean the difference between life and death. So I am not willing to take away someone right to defend their home just because they live in a bad neighborhood. Sorry look at the statics once your home is robed once, if they got some good stuff they are very likely to come back in a few months after you had a chance to collect from the insurance company and replace the items. Someone has a safe, has it locked, I am not willing to tell them they lost the right to defend their family. I work in the insurance industry and any adjustor will tell people once they are burglarized to expect a return trip. We are in the business to make money so if we had a easy answer for this problem, we would definitely tell our policy holders.

I am sick in tired of criminals and stupid people doing stupid stuff and then forcing changes that make the innocent suffer. Just like the stupidest thing ever the 1,000,000 plus people on the watch list because a few idiot flew planes into buildings.


Gun stolen report it, no problem....Gun stolen don't report it, gun used in crime traced back to you, go to jail for aiding and abetting. Jail time depended on what crime was committed. No ifs ands or buts. Detectives are not stupid, someone constantly reports thefts that were not thefts they will see the pattern and they are already laws on the books to handle that. No new acts of congress or presidential orders need to fix that. Police just need to have their hands untied and given the ability to enforce the laws.

Xavier1985
01-31-2013, 05:57 AM
You missed the parenthesis of the previous line. IF, even after they have made all reasonable efforts to secure their firearms(Locked in a properly installed safe when not in use), they have their firearms stolen three times THEN they are placed on the permanently denied list. It happened to a friend of mine. His gun safe was broken free from the foundation by the use of a nearby bulldozer. You would have him do 10 years hard labor for someone else wrapping a chain around his gun safe? Again, it's about REASONABLE EFFORT. It's not opening a loophole, in fact it's closing the current loophole. As it stands now, the guy simply reports that his guns were stolen from under his bed, and he's free to go buy more. Oh hey he bought more AK's. whoops stolen again. darn thieves. Buy more AK's Whoops stolen again. It's like they know he has them under his bed or something. In your haste to dismiss my post as not compromising, you must have missed this section.



So that covered all of your reasoning.
1) Straw buyers cannot simply hand off their purchases to a buyer and claim their firearms were stolen without having to show an extreme effort was made to get them.
2) IF you buy a gun and it is used in a crime, YOU are liable. Which means that YOU MUST REPORT IT STOLEN BEFORE IT IS USED IN A CRIME! So I have no idea where you get off with that tangent about not reporting it stolen.
3) They cannot just sell it on the street and keep the money, as that sale HAS TO GO THROUGH AN FFL. That prevents people from saying, "Yeah I sold that to a dude I met at the gun show. What was his name? I dunno."

Of course this could all be a moot point anyway as the 3d printing technology gets better. You could print your own gun. Then there's relatively inexpensive CNC milling machines that could easily be adapted to make firearm frames(which are the only parts that have to go through an FFL). Ain't technology grand?


Um, life in the colonies wasn't exactly all roses and sunshine. We had to pay taxes on goods from England as well as having high tariffs on our goods. And look at the third amendment. It was put there because British troops could come into your home, eat your crops, slaughter your livestock and even have their way with your wife and daughter, and you couldn't do anything about it. While taxation gets the primary focus, it wasn't the only thing. And it was taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The colonies had NO SAY in Parliament. And they kept raising the taxes on things in the colonies, but we had no say in the matter.

Gun ownership does not cause massacres. The worst massacres in history were caused by means other than firearms. Bath Michigan. 38 children killed in a school. No gun was used. Weapon of choice? Dynamite. Oklahoma city. 168 souls, including 19 under 6. Weapon of choice? explosives(home made). And of course New York 9/11. 3000+ lost. Not a gun in sight. weapon of choice? Aircraft. Crazy people intent on killing massive numbers of people are far less concerned with the weapon they need than how to do the most damage.

Valets in Vegas had firearms? I never noticed that. Maybe it's because I don't let my knickers get all knotted because someone has a firearm. Or maybe it's because I rarely valet my car. But I would understand it, as they are sometimes in vehicles that are very expensive, and often have to run out to a darkened lot with the keys to that car in their hands.

And the whole "Arsenal" argument is just plain silly. A rifle is more accurate than a pistol. Plain and simple. A rifle also has less overspray than a shotgun. There are a ton of people who like to collect things. Some like firearms that look a certain way.
1 AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE REALLY HARD TO GET.
2 IF YOU HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE FEDS TO GET ONE THEY CAN RAID YOUR HOME AT ANY TIME.
3 YOU CANNOT BUY ONE THAT WAS REGISTERED AFTER 1 MAY 1986 UNLESS YOU ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT
4 THERE HAS BEEN ONE CRIME COMMITTED WITH A LEGALLY OBTAINED AUTOMATIC WEAPON BY A CIVILIAN SINCE 1934
(2 if you include the cop)
there... maybe NOW people will see it.

you give the list of the lost, which in itself is a sad read and their loss will always be remembered, but in america there were 12,664 murders in 2011. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.. that is ONE year, one SINGLE year as opposed to in the uk there were 550 murders and a very small percentage were gun related.

i will never be convinced gun ownership is a good idea and arming those who are not professionals, like valet parking attendants or even school teachers is just "typically american" as we say, amusing really.. so uncivilised.

guns were made for one thing, no matter how you dress it up or try to endlessly justify it, they are made for one purpose and the statistics show this.

There is a huge gun problem in america, you cannot deny this, the whole world see's it and shakes their head and with organisations like the NRA, they just make it easier for criminals or those who have a mental break down to gain the means to kill.

one of the posters mentioned that all massacres or most were from stolen guns, the killing at that primary school, the man used his mothers guns (yes, she had an arsenal, ridiculous) after killing her with them. The Batman shootings, i believe the man there actually owned most of his guns, saw a documentary on it on the BBC, even though he had failed x amount of the restrictions etc he still managed to buy fire arms.

lets face it, there are 2-4 massacres in america every year with no decline in the past 40-50 years involving guns, each of which have atleast 10 fatalities minimum.. that should be enough to have some form of ban or referendum or what have you..

the NRA say "guns don't kill people, people do" that s very true, but very ignorant at the same time.. guns were made for killing, it is what they are made for and sold for, wrap it up as self defence if you wish, but if you kill in self defence, you still have killed. People will always try to kill one another, the best thing to do is try to minimize the casualty list.

Tommycat
01-31-2013, 11:15 AM
@mim: You make a good point. But how do we give the police the power to arrest the people they know are straw buyers. Of course universal registration might work, but I would demand that any registration information be SEALED except as required in an investigation requiring a warrant for that information. I don't want the Journal news advertising where all the guns are. Granted, in Texas, that would look like they painted the map red.

@xavier: You fail to take in to account that in the US guns were used for defensive purposes(on the lowest estimate) roughly 700,000 times per year. In those murder statistics(which are actually not the murder statistics, but homicides, including Justified homicides) the majority are gang violence. I believe it's 75%(again on the low estimate). We have 20 times the number of heavy population centers as in the UK. AND your violent crime and crimes against women have gone up sharply since the banning of firearms(our rape has gone down 6% England and wales had gone up 11%). The majority of mass killings have occurred in areas that were labeled "Gun Free" with nobody to enforce it. If guns were the problem, why hasn't there been a mass shooting at a gun show? Removing guns from an area can work, but you have to have someone armed to enforce it. Like at the airport.

Do you truly think you can remove guns from a society that was founded on guns? We have by low estimates over 300,000,000 firearms(using 0's to show how large that number really is) in the US. We have 90,000,000 legal firearm owners(again a very low estimate). A firearm is a relatively simple machine. I can make one in a shop in about 2 hours(4 if I want to make a semiautomatic, 6 to make an automatic. Give me about 36 hours and I can actually manufacture a fully functioning M4). And that's to make one that fires gunpowder rounds. A lethal air rifle is not that hard to manufacture either.

Guns are an equalizer. They make a 90 lb woman able to beat a 200 lb man.

Also, it was the Brady Campaign(anti-gun group) that pointed out that most firearms used in massacres(which they called 2 or more people dead, including the shooter) were gained illegally. Generally through people lieing on their application. Oh that's right it's a crime to do that.

Xavier1985
01-31-2013, 01:18 PM
as you said, the country was founded using weaponry and guns were used for defensive purposes to defend the freedom the country once had, which, n turn, didn't last very long until a centre of government was formed, effectively taking most senses of the word of freedom, away.

freedom isn't free, as they say.

all past tenses, guns are tools for killing, nothing more, nothing less. sure they can be used as a deterrent, but that only goes so far, arming everyone just makes everything ergh.. uncivilised.

we can throw figures at each other, but they are just figures, they neglect to take into consideration a varity of other factors, education, employment, drugs, alcohol. America has one of the worst gun crimes in the world, the uk has a pretty bad violence related to alcohol issue..

equal rights does not mean giving a weak person a gun and giving a strong person a gun, that is just barbaric.

Tommycat
01-31-2013, 02:26 PM
as you said, the country was founded using weaponry and guns were used for defensive purposes to defend the freedom the country once had, which, n turn, didn't last very long until a centre of government was formed, effectively taking most senses of the word of freedom, away.

freedom isn't free, as they say.

all past tenses, guns are tools for killing, nothing more, nothing less. sure they can be used as a deterrent, but that only goes so far, arming everyone just makes everything ergh.. uncivilised.
An armed society is a polite society. Strangely enough that was true back in the old west(not the wild west, that's Hollywood, where Johnny Ringo was in a hundred places he never really was). Are police in the UK uncivilized because they carry firearms?

we can throw figures at each other, but they are just figures, they neglect to take into consideration a varity of other factors, education, employment, drugs, alcohol. America has one of the worst gun crimes in the world, the uk has a pretty bad violence related to alcohol issue..

equal rights does not mean giving a weak person a gun and giving a strong person a gun, that is just barbaric.

The US does not have a gun problem. 300000000 firearms in circulation(again super low estimate), and roughly 9000 homicides works out to .00003 % of firearms used in murder. Statistically, you're more likely to get run over by a drunk driver than murdered with a firearm. And that statistical likelihood drops even lower if you aren't a member of a gang(I think it gets down to the same likelihood of being eaten by a shark). And if we take it even further, to the "assault weapons" that number drops to the same statistical likelihood of being bitten by a shark in Poland(350 since the end of the Federal Assault Weapons ban).

And honestly you are claiming that WE have a problem. You point out how few mass murders you have had since your ban. How many did you have before the ban?

I didn't say it was equal rights. Simply that it places them on equal footing. Assuming of course there is no difference in training. If a 90 lb woman has a firearm and a 200 lb man has a firearm, who has the advantage? If a 90 lb woman is facing off against a 200 lb man, who has the advantage.

mimartin
01-31-2013, 08:17 PM
The US does not have a gun problem. 300000000 firearms in circulation(again super low estimate), and roughly 9000 homicides works out to .00003 % of firearms used in murder. Statistically, you're more likely to get run over by a drunk driver than murdered with a firearm.

http://www.vamworld.com/file/view/cherry.jpg/371253746/cherry.jpg

•In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour

correct me if I am wrong, but guns take more lives in the US than drunk driving, at least in 2010.

VeniVidiVicous
01-31-2013, 11:36 PM
It's more than a little hypocritical that the same administration that thought it was a good idea to "gunwalk" thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal) wants to prohibit legal ownership of the same type of weapons by law-abiding American citizens. :wonder:

No, that actually fits the idea that the firearms were able to be legally purchased here in the US by people who could pass the NICS check. What's hypocritical is that this administration sent Arms to Libyan Rebels (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) but thinks we shouldn't be able to purchase the same arms they GAVE AWAY.

I'm guessing that the Libya move was considered beneficial to US foreign policy.
As for the Mexican Cartel move, everybody likes drugs right?:thmbup1:

In regards to how any of that affects a US citizens gun rights, it doesn't in the governments eyes I imagine.

Q
02-01-2013, 12:49 AM
When a government doesn't have a problem with breaking its own laws, it's time for that government to be replaced by one that does, and that's what the gun control issue is all about, really.
correct me if I am wrong, but guns take more lives in the US than drunk driving, at least in 2010.
Actually, it's people taking lives in both cases.

I KNOW: LET'S BAN TEH PEOPLE!!!!!111!1!111ONE [/kneejerk] :p

VeniVidiVicous
02-01-2013, 01:03 AM
@Q:

Well I think when it comes to foreign and domestic issues they can view them as two separate things where one has absolutely nothing to do with the other, hence doing something abroad which you wouldn't do at home is a non-issue.

Whether that's hypocritical is another discussion.

Q
02-01-2013, 01:26 AM
The "gunwalking" originated on US soil.

Xavier1985
02-01-2013, 07:55 AM
@TommyCat

the average policeman in the uk does not carry a gun, an armed society is an uncivilised and ignorant society.

we have armed units, just incase something is to occur (bank robbers, terrorists and the like) but they are only called when the situation requires them. To arm everyone is to live in fear, fear is not the tool of democracy.

And the usa does have a gun control problem, 2-4 massacres per year every year screams problem to me, you try telling the parents who lost their children in the stupidly high amount of school shootings that there isn't a problem, throw what ever statistics you like, it is a way to detatch yourself from the reality, when even one child dies from a fire-arm incident, then there is a huge problem, end of.

Q
02-01-2013, 08:37 AM
You're doing a wonderful job of living up to your stereotype.

Far be it from me to stop you. Pontificate on.

mimartin
02-01-2013, 09:26 AM
When a government doesn't have a problem with breaking its own laws, it's time for that government to be replaced by one that does, and that's what the gun control issue is all about, really.
Sorry no, that is what people want to say, but even if you had machine guns, tanks.... you are not taking down a government that spends more on defense than the other 13 countries in the world with guns people have in their home. Fortunately the founding fathers thought of that and gave us another method of change the government, less deadly too. VOTE. Sorry the American people seem to vote against most of your ideas, but other people have their own opinions.

So Q. beside my petty misplace use of words, do you agree with Tommycat that you are less likely to be killed with a gun involved than involved in a death involving a car and impaired driver or are you just trying to cherry pick to and take the discussion off the real problem. Idiots that shouldn't have guns are killing people and themselves with them. I said straight off I don't want to ban guns, but you are sounding more and more like the NRA's solution give everyone a gun and let the last person standing win.

Q
02-01-2013, 10:10 AM
So, you're admitting that we live under an unassailable oligarchy, now, which is not at all what the founding fathers intended? Good. I agree. Democracy here is an illusion, so what's the point of voting when you're forced to choose between bad and worse? What a joke. Voting has become nothing more than humoring a feel-good farce.

Gun ownership isn't about taking over the government; it's about taking as many of the jack-booted government thugs with you as you can when they finally come for you. They're not nearly as likely to come for you as long as there's a fairly good chance that they're going to get shot.

As to your second point: Why can't we just shoot the idiots when they enter a crowded place and open fire? And if people want to kill themselves, why can't we just let them? :giveup:

Tommycat
02-01-2013, 12:07 PM
@TommyCat

the average policeman in the uk does not carry a gun, an armed society is an uncivilised and ignorant society.

we have armed units, just incase something is to occur (bank robbers, terrorists and the like) but they are only called when the situation requires them. To arm everyone is to live in fear, fear is not the tool of democracy.
I'm asking if the armed police officers suddenly become uncivilized simply for carrying a firearm. You seem to believe that simply having the firearm on them makes them uncivilized. I beg to differ. Or maybe we have different definitions of civilized. I tend to believe that "civil" is part of it. I have found that places that are disarmed have a greater chance of being uncivil than places that nobody knows if you are armed.
And the usa does have a gun control problem, 2-4 massacres per year every year screams problem to me, you try telling the parents who lost their children in the stupidly high amount of school shootings that there isn't a problem, throw what ever statistics you like, it is a way to detatch yourself from the reality, when even one child dies from a fire-arm incident, then there is a huge problem, end of.
And the emotional "for the kids" argument. Again, I point out that the firearm is NOT what causes these mass killings. How many people could he have killed if instead of a gun he used a tanker full of fuel? These parents instead would be crying over the fact that their child was so burned that the only thing left was ashes and a strip of cloth. The worst mass killing in a school in the US had NO firearms involved. The problem is that we make these schools into targets. The only thing those "Gun Free Zone" signs keep out are the sane people who wouldn't turn their guns on kids.

Again, I point out that there are no mass killings at gun shows. And don't tell me it's because they check them to make sure they are not loaded, because quite frankly that little zip tie wouldn't stop a determined killer anymore than a "Gun Free Zone" sign. Our problem is NOT the gun. With the majority of violence being gang related and drug related, I'd say that's what we should work on cleaning up.

Astor
02-01-2013, 12:47 PM
I promised myself I wouldn't get involved as it's not for us Johnny Foreigners to tell you how to solve the 'problem' of guns and gun control - though to me it seems the recent cases are more a failing of a woeful lack of intervention on the part of the mental health services, but I'll leave it at that.

the average policeman in the uk does not carry a gun, an armed society is an uncivilised and ignorant society.

Our population may not be armed, but we're just as uncivilised and ignorant.

we have armed units, just incase something is to occur (bank robbers, terrorists and the like) but they are only called when the situation requires them.

Or when the NHS need to break into your home while you're out at work to remove someone for their own safety. Oh, and they'll charge you for the privilege, too. And yes folks, that is based on a real life experience.

To arm everyone is to live in fear, fear is not the tool of democracy.

Have you followed any recent elections on either side of the Atlantic lately? Fear, justified or not, is used on a daily basis by those who seek to lead us.

And the usa does have a gun control problem, 2-4 massacres per year every year screams problem to me, you try telling the parents who lost their children in the stupidly high amount of school shootings that there isn't a problem, throw what ever statistics you like, it is a way to detatch yourself from the reality, when even one child dies from a fire-arm incident, then there is a huge problem, end of.

But it's not our problem, it's theirs, though as I say, I'm not convinced the problem starts and ends solely with gun ownership.

mimartin
02-01-2013, 12:49 PM
As to your second point: Why can't we just shoot the idiots when they enter a crowded place and open fire? And if people want to kill themselves, why can't we just let them? :giveup: So cherry picking is the answer, you are just looking at only the parts that fit you argument. How many of the 31,076 deaths in 2010 were from people entering crowed places and opening fire? Compare that to the unintentional shootings or even those 5 years old and under that died from unintentional gunshots. I am pretty sure we can also say a kid 5 year old and under is not responsible for a accidental shooting. Well considering this thread maybe I should not assume that.

I have never written anything in this thread that people should not have the right and ability to defend their-self.

I am just not willing to

http://www.freeclipartnow.com/d/2305-1/ostrich-head-In-Sand.jpg

and pretend there is not a problem like some of you seem to be.

So no, I don't want the person, that would leave a gun out so a small child could get hold of it, to open up on a crazy in a crowed place. If they are so irresponsible with their weapon, what makes you think they will not add to the body count rather than limiting it? People have just watched too many Rambo, John Wayne, Dirty Harry movies...John Wayne is dead, unless you have real training or are willing to die to protect others run away not towards. In that situation you must pick your target and be absolutely sure that is your target and you have a shot, if not you are just a wanna-be hero that accidentally killed a innocent.

Tommycat
02-01-2013, 01:59 PM
I think we're kind of in agreement mimartin. I place others' lives above my own, and would rather defend them than worry about myself. Perhaps it's me projecting my own mentality on others that makes me feel that allowing people to carry is acceptable. Besides, from what I understand, if you are shooting at a bad guy and miss and kill someone else, you're still liable for that as 1)reckless endangerment, 2) second degree Manslaughter, 3) possibly murder.

Q
02-01-2013, 03:25 PM
Unless you're law enforcement. Then you just get suspended with pay for awhile while the department or agency throws up a smokescreen and handles the civil suit. No need to worry about criminal charges; that hardly ever happens.
So cherry picking is the answer, you are just looking at only the parts that fit you argument. How many of the 31,076 deaths in 2010 were from people entering crowed places and opening fire? Compare that to the unintentional shootings or even those 5 years old and under that died from unintentional gunshots. I am pretty sure we can also say a kid 5 year old and under is not responsible for a accidental shooting. Well considering this thread maybe I should not assume that.
I have no problem with responsible gun stowage at all. To me, that's just common sense. I'm just not sure how that can be effectively enforced without infringing even more on the freedom and privacy of law-abiding citizens.

I did notice something, however. First you say something like this:
I have never written anything in this thread that people should not have the right and ability to defend their-self.
And then you go and say this:
So no, I don't want the person, that would leave a gun out so a small child could get hold of it, to open up on a crazy in a crowed place. If they are so irresponsible with their weapon, what makes you think they will not add to the body count rather than limiting it? People have just watched too many Rambo, John Wayne, Dirty Harry movies...John Wayne is dead, unless you have real training or are willing to die to protect others run away not towards. In that situation you must pick your target and be absolutely sure that is your target and you have a shot, if not you are just a wanna-be hero that accidentally killed a innocent.
Either you're confused, or I am, but you seem to be hopping from one foot to the other a lot on this subject.

mimartin
02-01-2013, 04:33 PM
Either you're confused, or I am, You're the one confused, because saying someone has the right to do something and saying someone shouldn't do something because they don't have the ability are two different things.

Q
02-02-2013, 09:26 PM
K.

So, what you're saying is that, worn-out cliches of dumb rednecks who've seen one too many action films aside (because, you know, it's common knowledge that everyone with a CCW is a dumb redneck who's seen one too many action films :p), the scenario where no one takes action against an armed assailant in a crowded area, and thereby guaranteeing that he will inflict the maximum number of casualties before the police magically teleport in is somehow preferable to someone who carries a pistol and knows how to use it shooting the crazy ****er because he might accidentally hit an innocent person?

mimartin
02-03-2013, 12:11 AM
K.

So, what you're saying is that, worn-out cliches of dumb rednecks who've seen one too many action films aside (because, you know, it's common knowledge that everyone with a CCW is a dumb redneck who's seen one too many action films :p), the scenario where no one takes action against an armed assailant in a crowded area, and thereby guaranteeing that he will inflict the maximum number of casualties before the police magically teleport in is somehow preferable to someone who carries a pistol and knows how to use it shooting the crazy ****er because he might accidentally hit an innocent person?

No I am not...I will write what I am mean; you do not have to wrongly add to it.

Besides I have a CCW. If you have ever had training then you should know what I am saying is the same thing that any instructor would teach you. It is also the same thing that police and soldiers are taught.

Read again what I wrote, I did not WRITE NO ONE SHOULD TAKE ACTION…. Never mind typical non-reading and people adding their own definition to words. This place is a cesspool when it comes to debate, I write something clear as day So no, I don't want the person, that would leave a gun out so a small child could get hold of it, to open up on a crazy in a crowed place. What is so hard to understand there? If someone is so irresponsible and has such disregard for the safety of a child, I would not want them running in to shot the target. They are just as likely to shoot the responsible gun owner that was about to take out the crazy.

I’m done, if you guys are not going to actually discuss and read, I don’t see the point.

Q
02-03-2013, 12:23 AM
Sorry for the confusion, but why did you think that I was saying that people without a CCW and training should shoot back in a situation like that? They shouldn't even be carrying in the first place.

That's doesn't fit with the term "law-abiding".


And, no offense, but my "non-reading" is likely due to your non-writing. Sorry, but sometimes your posts are about as clear as mud. :xp:
(Please don't get angry; the last thing I'd want to do is offend you.)

mimartin
02-03-2013, 12:50 AM
Sorry I have the ability to look at both side of every argument and see the pros and cons of both sides and I have the ability to change my opinion something that escapes the majority of those that post in Kavars.

machievelli
03-30-2013, 10:19 AM
the usa is no different to any other western world country, except that is one of the youngest and feel like they have something to prove. We over here in the uk don't get pushed around any more or less than the americans do... this was true even back in the "founding father" days, just didn't want to pay the kings taxes, but they ended up paying their own tax, amusing.

i'll never be convinced of being pro-gun owner ship, especially arming people to the teeth, that is just immature and ignorant. if there is a problem with massacres, handing out more guns will not resolve the issue, it would just make it easier for the suspect to do what they will do.

i went to Vegas a few years ago, even the car valet people have pistols, how ridiculous, et they will be arming MacDonald's employees next. That is one of the most off putting things about the USA, their fetish for guns.

but as i said before, ban and make automatic and some semi automatic weapons, anyone who has an arsenal of weapons has intent, if you only wanted to own a weapon for protection, you would only need a small pistol or something to that extent. Anything bigger or more powerful and it goes beyond defence and into the realm of intent.

After Obama made that ridiculous speech, I felt a need to check here to see if we had a current thread on this subjuect. I chose your comment because of the inconsistencies in your facts.

First, we did not rebel because we had to pay taxes, it was the idea that we were not allowed representation in even the Commons to protest the fact. It was like the South before the War Between the States being told they could not protest punitive tariffs on Cotton sold outside the US itself.

As for intent; Guns are a good investment. There are a couple of places here in Vegas where if I had the money, I could go in, rent a weapon, anything from a German machine gun from WWII up to a Ma Deuce fifty caliber or even 'old painless' from Predator, and fire it. Of course they aren't going to let me off the range with it, but if you've ever wanted to see an MG42 'Hitler's Zipper' and actually fire it, you get the chance.

As recently as the Shrub's administration, the Justice department was ordered to get together with Constitutional law scholars to examine the wording of the constitution, and they reported (2006 if I am correct) that while the term militia is used, it states that the average American has the right to own a gun, and our government does not have the right to restrict that.

The reason they keep pushing these laws is because we can muzzle ourselves if they get enough sheep to baa in chorus.

As for polarization, back in the late 60s, the pro gun lobby tried to get a bill passed to ban Saturday Night Specials, cheap guns sometimes more dangerous to those who use them. The NRA actually came out at the time and stated they would support it if it were properly written. The basics of the law was the gun had to be cheap (At the time, the price was set at less than a hundred dollar) poorly constructed, small enough to conceal, and of an inefficient caliber (The NRA would have accepted anything smaller than 7.62 short, the old .32).

Where this alliance fell apart was in deciding how many of these had to apply. The NRA wanted at least two. But the Pro control mob wanted it to be any one criteria.

Using that measure, a Ruger Olympic Match in 22 short is one, even if it would cost you 1500 dollars to buy. The Beretta .380 a finely machined weapon which back then cost about 75 dollars would have been banned because of the price, and the Colt Chief's Special with a 2 and a half inch barrel (63mm) would have been banned because it was designed to be concealed.

In my lifetime they have tried to ban [ammunition[/i] on the grounds that it is like dynamite, meaning you need a special permit to buy it. They tried to say the National Guard was the Militia the 2nd Amendment spoke of, so we don't need guns. Since I was alive when the National Guard opened fire at Kent State I can't call them 'well organized'. The minor fact that since 1903 the National Guard is defined as a secondary Army reserve unit, and the Feds used this when they first nationalized, then ordered the National Guard to Stand down when Governor Wallace used them to block College integration in Alabama is incidental.

The militia spoken of in 1783 was every armed citizen coming out ready to defend their homes, not some guy being paid for 36 days a year to go out and get some remedial training as a soldier, which is what the Guard is.

The problem is every time this comes up, it's an emotional response to a failure to enforce existing laws. And the Advocates, especially in Hollywood come down on their own who disagree. When Tom Selleck made a commercial for the NRA, Rosie O'Donnel, a Gun Control advocate accused him of being paid to make it, even though it has always been NRA policy that only members of the NRA make public announcements for the organization and ask them to do it as members, not as paid spokesmen. O'Donnel can say 'I don't need a gun' because she has a security system that sends armed officers if she hits the panic button. I, with an income of about $720 a month can't afford to even get a price estimate from one. And saying 'the police will protect you' is a joke. We'd need one cop per a hundred people to have anywhere close to that protection.

The reason I came down on Obama's speech is because I've heard something like it before. Back when they had a TV show named Quincy on the air, the producers got on a 'cause of the week' spree. When they got to gun control, Jack Klugman who starred as the title character said, '75% of the American people want a comprehensive ban of guns, but no one listens'.

Sounds a lot like 'Our people want this, and I'm going to give it to them' to me. The problem with that claim is simple.

When 75% of our people want something they get it, even if they have to do a grass roots campaign needed to create a new Constitutional Amendment.

Tommycat
03-31-2013, 04:01 AM
Heh, my problem is that I see this as a bit of a slippery slope. And it seems that it's just going to continue. I remember in 1986 hearing them talk of getting rid of the dangerous machine guns because "Nobody needs an automatic weapon to kill a deer."(ignoring the fact that the only machine guns used in crimes were ILLEGAL machine guns) Yet just recently that exact phrase was used with "automatic weapon" replaced by "30 rounds" by Cuomo. Neglecting the fact that the second amendment does not state "the right to keep and bear HUNTING arms." If you fudds let this go, next it will be "Nobody needs to shoot a deer from 1000 yards away" as they go for your "sniper" scopes. Then "Nobody needs more than a .243" Then as they limit rounds lower and lower... One day maybe these fudds will realize that when they called a .223 a "High Powered Assault Bullet" their .308, or .30-06 wouldn't be long for this world either.

machievelli
03-31-2013, 02:08 PM
Tommy, you should read the Federalist Papers. Madison (The framer of the 2nd) Amendment, commented that in the event of the Federal govrnment (Who had less than 50,000 troops in 1783) using them to force Pennsylvania to accept a Federal decision, they would face several times their number (and this is only a paraphrase) 'armed with equal weapons ready to stop them'.

There is a term called the law of unconsidered consequences at work here. Until 1903, Militias (Such as the different Regiment on both sides of the War Between the States, and later the Rough Riders in the Spanish American war) were armed with whatever their state could buy them, or wanted to buy them. During the first war, this meant that the US government was supplying ammunition in over 60 different calibers and bullet weights instead of just a few. In both of those wars, the commanding officers on the Regimental level were originally elected]/i] to lead, which if you think about it, explains a lot of the problems both sides in the WBS and later had.

The wording of the Militia act only allowed the US to pick the officers and equipment, with a 'when war occurs they come under Federal command' codicil instead of the blanket 'we control them, not the states' accepted by our government since.

The one nation where guns are allowed for whoever wants to buy them, yet has the least violent crimes of any type is Switzerland. That is because [i]every man between the ages of 18 and 45 serves in the military and reserves. Would you break into a home to rob it knowing the man inside or his neighbor has anything from a pistol and rifle right up to a Carl Gustav anti tank launcher to hit you with?

As for using an illegal firearm, To quote Dirty Harry, 'go ahead, make my day'.

Part of the reason it works is because the Swiss regulate the weapons and ammunition sold. A soldier going into reserve, or home on leave carries his issue weapons and sealed packs of his full ammunition issue for those guns. If he wants to practice with them, he leaves the ammo at home in the locked room required, carries the weapon down to a military of police range where he is issued ammunition for his practice.

Civilians have to follow the same rules; if I had an urge to buy a Barrett .50 caliber just for the fun of, as Sean Connery said in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen of 'pipping the ace' at 1500 meters, I could do so. But the same rules for the military applies. I have to go to a military range (Police ones don't have the range), show them the ammunition I brought, fire them off, show them the expended brass, then take it home. Every round fired, even for a civilian has to be accounted for.

If you defend your home or neighbor by loading that weapon, as soon as the danger is gone, you report immediately that you have done so. The local police arrive, verify this is true, verify the amount of ammunition loaded (It is issued in magazines,) how many rounds if any, were fired, and actually unload and count every round in every magazine.

If someone is killed with a gun in that nation, even as the street cops and Homicide are blocking off the scene, other cops are going to every residence with a gun and verifying that they have not used the issue or legally purchased ammunition. If they do not find someone has done so, as soon as they know what caliber was used, they extend that search nationwide to anyone who has that caliber of weapon. With modern forensics, they can even tell you what make and model was used.

Their laws for illegal use of a fire arm, or using ammunition smuggled in is draconian. If you want to spend the next twenty odd years in jail, just get caught smuggling ammunition, let's not even consider what the penalty is for an illegal weapon.

I hadn't noticed that the laws regarding automatic weapons of the 80s had included the stopping of the Tax Stamps for them. That is bothersome because of the internal problems it would create. You see, I did know they had to be purchased from the government every time an automatic weapon was sold in the states that allowed ownership. The problem with them back then when I first heard about them was they were (1970s) were 150 dollars per gun, and the new owner had to buy one before he could buy the gun if you had to sell it.

Back in the decade right before the War Between the States the US government made the importation of new slaves illegal.That meant the only slaves still allowed were those already owned. In the South, a number of states made manumission illegal. You could no longer free slaves. There had been punitive taxes already in place since the Revolution on freeing slaves; the way our founding fathers got around it (Washinton and Jefferson) was by freeing them upon their deaths in their will. But a slave owner of say 1852 was not allowed to do this. The slaves of the dead man automatically became the property of their children, who, at need, were required to sell them on to other slave owners.

As a simple example of applied economic, let's say I was living in Texas in '75; chosen because in the 70s, I could legally own a machine gun (Hell, under Texas law, the only things I could not own were bazookas, modern artillery pieces, and modern tanks). I decide to buy a cheap sub machine gun just because I am the type of nut that wants to say I have it. The John Wayne Movie M'Q had Wayne using an Ingram M11 in .380 caliber, and I decide if the Duke used it, it's all good. So I go down to the local gun shop, and ask. The gun is cheap straight from the manufacturer; try $125. But then he tells it will cost me $275 because of that blasted tax stamp. But hey, if I want to sell it, I just find someone willing to pay me that amount, and leave the next tax stamp to him.

Jump to today, assuming I had bought that weapon way back whenm and still had it. Nevada is one of those states that still allows me to own it, I just get a 10 round clip and turn in the 32 round ones I used to have. The ban didn't stop me from owning the weapon itself, it's grandfathered in because it was bought before the ban, which only banned new purchases.

I'm skirting on the edge of the poverty level (As I am in actuality), and I can use what a collector would pay for the gun (try about a thousand now). But then I find that I can't sell the gun unless I am willing to find a foerign buyer, and even then, I have to get permission to sell it overseas. Why? Because if it were sold to some nice guy from Columbia say, and he uses it anywhere and the weapon is recovered by law enforcement, take a wild guess who ends up in jail linked to not only illegal weapons, but maybe drug charges as well.

Worse yet, if I were to die, my daughter could not even own the gun, let alone sell it because she can't buy a new tax stamp.

Tommycat
08-28-2013, 04:58 PM
Worse yet, if I were to die, my daughter could not even own the gun, let alone sell it because she can't buy a new tax stamp.

Tax stamps can still be transferred. Just no NEW tax stamps are issued. You still have to get approval from your highest LEO(Sheriff). But you can get them transferred. There are web pages which currently assist in the selling of these pre-ban firearms.

mimartin
09-19-2013, 10:57 AM
The bodies were still warm from the shots fired and talk radio was already talking about Obama taking our guns. They said the Libs pray for this kind of thing just so they can take away our rights. Just as likely idiots on the radio pray for this type of thing so they can work everyone into a frenzy about Obama taking our guns. Then they can set back in rake in the cash as we see a run on the flavor or the week weapons and ammo.

Almost as funny a Rush saying science isn't science. He must have went to a Texas school where science isn't science but bible study 2.0.

Tommycat
09-27-2013, 12:59 PM
The bodies were still warm from the shots fired and talk radio was already talking about Obama taking our guns. They said the Libs pray for this kind of thing just so they can take away our rights. Just as likely idiots on the radio pray for this type of thing so they can work everyone into a frenzy about Obama taking our guns. Then they can set back in rake in the cash as we see a run on the flavor or the week weapons and ammo.

Almost as funny a Rush saying science isn't science. He must have went to a Texas school where science isn't science but bible study 2.0.

To be fair, Feinstein was already talking about her assault weapon ban before the shooting was over. Obama has not stopped talking about gun control, and every time there is a news story about guns, he blathers on about how "We're not done yet" about gun control. He and Bloomberg have spent so much time on gun control how can you blame the pro-2nd groups believing they're out to get them. The Right is justified in believing he's after guns, because hours after the shooting began he said,
So we are confronting yet another mass shooting, and today it happened on a military installation in our nation’s capital. Obviously, we’re going to be investigating thoroughly what happened, as we do so many of these shootings, sadly, that have happened, and do everything that we can to prevent them
Then add in Kerry signing the UN arms treaty which is opposed by BOTH parties...

And honestly the media in general DO pray for this kind of thing(regardless of political affiliation) so they can get the public all tuned in to get the latest information on what underwear the shooter preferred.

mimartin
09-27-2013, 01:35 PM
Yeah that does sound better, way to deflect, they didn't say people in the media, they said Libs. Sure some in the media are Libs, but not all Libs are in the media.

also bad Obama for wanting to prevent mass shootings, that is so un-American.

Tommycat
09-27-2013, 02:05 PM
Yeah that does sound better, way to deflect, they didn't say people in the media, they said Libs. Sure some in the media are Libs, but not all Libs are in the media.

also bad Obama for wanting to prevent mass shootings, that is so un-American.

When you combine that with all of his other statements on gun control, Yeah the way he goes about it is bad. His conclusion has almost always been more gun control.

I wasn't deflecting ANYTHING. I'm saying that BOTH progressive AND conservative media outlets enjoy this kind of thing. It gives them both something they enjoy talking about that their viewers and listeners tune in for. But for some reason you want to focus on the conservative media. Meanwhile the progressive media were talking about him roaming the halls with an AR-15... OOPS he had a shotgun... Well he was going to buy an AR-15 in another state, but was stopped by gun control. Oops that was ALSO a lie as buying a rifle OR shotgun goes through the same process. Only pistols are different. Gee, I wonder why pro-2a people think there's some agenda to remove their firearms.

mimartin
09-27-2013, 06:05 PM
Whatever, Rush and Michael Berry and others were saying all libs were praying for it not the media, but that is okay since it is about libs. Got it. :thmbup1:

And yes, there should be some gun control, since nuts getting guns are out of control, even if it is just keeping guns out of nuts hands, that is still gun control.

Tommycat
09-27-2013, 07:58 PM
Whatever, Rush and Michael Berry and others were saying all libs were praying for it not the media, but that is okay since it is about libs. Got it. :thmbup1:

And yes, there should be some gun control, since nuts getting guns are out of control, even if it is just keeping guns out of nuts hands, that is still gun control.
Since I rarely(if ever) listen to Rush, and actually have no idea who the heck Michael Berry is I couldn't care less what they claim. I was stating that all media outlets love this kind of thing. Conservatives use it to bash liberals, Liberals use it to bash conservatives(as you're apparently doing). The remainder of the media are throwing it out there to 1) promote some anti-gun message or 2) drum up some viewers to find out every aspect of this person's pathetic life.

You're the one who claimed it was the Conservatives saying Obama was using it to push for removing our guns. I pointed out that they have a valid reason to believe that. I was agreeing partially with you, in that BOTH sides were loving this. The anti-gunners and the conservative talking heads are more than happy to use a tragedy to push their agenda.

Gun control is not the answer. If you make it so that any mental instability is grounds for having guns removed, you will find fewer people getting treatment for things that would otherwise be easily controlled. Make it easier to get treatment rather than controlling the millions because of a few bad apples.

mimartin
09-27-2013, 08:03 PM
You're the one who claimed it was the Conservatives saying Obama was using it to push for removing our guns.No I wasn't, I stated a fact. I claimed nothing about that.

Just give everyone guns and the last one standing wins. Got it. Always great debating with such logic.

Liberals use it to bash conservatives(as you're apparently doing).Where? I bashed Rush and radio taking heads, I did not put all conservatives into that, I was bitching about taking heads putting all libs in one big pile, so wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical of me to do the thing I am bitching about?

Tommycat
09-27-2013, 08:22 PM
No I wasn't, I stated a fact. I claimed nothing about that.

Just give everyone guns and the last one standing wins. Got it. Always great debating with such logic.

Where? I bashed Rush and radio taking heads, I did not put all conservatives into that, I was bitching about taking heads putting all libs in one big pile, so wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical of me to do the thing I am bitching about?

Right, okay so Rush isn't a conservative. The other talking heads you're talking about are liberal right? You're being specifically critical of the right, while ignoring the leftists who did the same if not worse.

And knowing that one of the talking heads was Rush, he has ALWAYS pushed the boundaries of decency. His business model is based on calling the other side a bunch of monsters.

And where the eff do you get me saying give everyone a gun?

mimartin
09-27-2013, 08:31 PM
Where is the rule that states I have to give equal time to both parties?

I attacked radio talking heads that were attacking all libs, saying they prayed for mass murder. I did not attack everyone on the right. As you like to over look I'm fairly right on this issue, just not stupid to the far right like the NRA, but I guess that is the new left now.

"If you make it so that any mental instability is grounds for having guns removed" ~ no I don't want to make it, since it is already the law. I want to enforce those laws. No it will not stop it, nothing will, but it will save lives and that is all we should really be striving to do.

Tommycat
09-27-2013, 08:34 PM
Where is the rule that states I have to give equal time to both parties?

I attacked radio talking heads that were attacking all libs, saying they prayed for mass murder. I did not attack everyone on the right. As you like to over look I'm fairly right on this issue, just not stupid to the far right like the NRA, but I guess that is the new left now.

I guess expecting any level of objectivity is too much. My bad.

mimartin
09-27-2013, 08:39 PM
I guess expecting any level of objectivity is too much. My bad.
http://www.goenglish.com/GoEnglish_com_ThePotCallingTheKettleBlack.gif

Tommycat
09-27-2013, 08:46 PM
Right, because I haven't been in any way objective? I have criticized my own side as well. Where as you have? NOPE you can call me the pot calling the kettle black all you want, but in this case, I have been rather objective. I'm pretty well equally disgusted with both the conservatives AND the liberal/progressive/whatever the heck the "bad guys" are called nowadays.

mimartin
09-27-2013, 08:52 PM
Well if I am to the right on this issue, wouldn't me going after the right be objective?

I made a comment on what I heard on the radio, I did not listen to anyone from the left that stated anything so stupid, so I did not comment on something I did not hear. I live in Texas, not a lot of left radio talk shows around here. Guess they didn't get the memo about being objective.

Tommycat
09-27-2013, 08:59 PM
On guns you may be center right, but on the issue you are talking about, you're left. You supported Obama, so technically attacking those who attack him are NOT your side. This portion of the conversation isn't really on the guns, but the left/right media. Which you were more than happy to "catch" that big headed buffoon saying something stupid.

"Rush said something stupid and insensitive."

*yawn* AND?

mimartin
09-27-2013, 09:07 PM
"Rush said something stupid and insensitive."

*yawn* AND?Yet you defend him at all cost.

And no on the issue I am talking about I am right, you do not have the right nor do you know me enough to define me. Yes, I gave money to Obama, me and Achilles played a game and we donated money, you actually helped because I gave Obama money based on something you did, so you could say you supported Obama too. That does not mean I agree with him on every issue or support his stance on every issue. I also voted for George Bush in his first election and you can pretty much guess I did not support him on every issue.

Tommycat
09-29-2013, 01:09 AM
Yet you defend him at all cost.

And no on the issue I am talking about I am right, you do not have the right nor do you know me enough to define me. Yes, I gave money to Obama, me and Achilles played a game and we donated money, you actually helped because I gave Obama money based on something you did, so you could say you supported Obama too. That does not mean I agree with him on every issue or support his stance on every issue. I also voted for George Bush in his first election and you can pretty much guess I did not support him on every issue.
Since you like to play the semantics game so much, fine. Quote where exactly I defended Rush, and provide evidence I defend him at all costs. I don't even listen to that blowhard. The reason is the same reason I don't listen to Stern. They are entertainers. They make their living by people listening to them.

your first post for this was specifically about the right wing blowhard blathering on as he does. I don't keep posting every time feinstein says something stupid. I don't even point out Biden's stupid and dangerous advice about shotguns. But you felt that the horrible words of an idiot were important enough for this discussion? I happen to hate him more than the people on the opposite side. But even still his point was likely about the "Liberals" that are in charge. Just as the Liberals pretend all the republicans want everyone dead.

Q
09-29-2013, 07:31 AM
LOL @ the latest "call to knee-jerk."

Conservatives + Libertarians = NOT GONNA HAPPEN, AKA LOL.

mimartin
09-29-2013, 12:50 PM
Quote where exactly I defended Rush
I can just quote this post, you seem to believe two wrongs makes a right. Well these people do this horrible thing, so what the other side does this.

If someone says all conservatives bigots, at least I will defend that is totally false, I will say some are, but the vast majority beliefs have noting to do with race they are that way they are because they believe it is what is right for the country. However, when I point out someone on the right, and he is on the right side, say something just as offensive, about all Liberals, all you want to do is point out those on the other side say stupid things. Praying for innocent people to die is very offensive to me and it was not just Rush saying it, others picked up on it. I never attacked everyone on the right, I attacked Rush and those that accept his word as gospel.

However, as you pointed out I am wrong. It is not wrong or offensive, because the other side says stupid stuff too.

Tommycat
09-29-2013, 01:33 PM
I can just quote this post, you seem to believe two wrongs makes a right. Well these people do this horrible thing, so what the other side does this.

If someone says all conservatives bigots, at least I will defend that is totally false, I will say some are, but the vast majority beliefs have noting to do with race they are that way they are because they believe it is what is right for the country. However, when I point out someone on the right, and he is on the right side, say something just as offensive, about all Liberals, all you want to do is point out those on the other side say stupid things. Praying for innocent people to die is very offensive to me and it was not just Rush saying it, others picked up on it. I never attacked everyone on the right, I attacked Rush and those that accept his word as gospel.

However, as you pointed out I am wrong. It is not wrong or offensive, because the other side says stupid stuff too.
how does me saying that I'm neither surprised, nor shocked when rush says something stupid and insensitive become me saying it is not wrong or offensive? How does that become two wrongs make a right? I'm frankly sick of BOTH sides doing it. The constant partisan bickering is not helpful in the least. Its what we have now. You seem to believe that only the right needs to be called out on their insensitivity. Well I guess, only the right wingers should have their hate exposed in your eyes.