lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: NOT ANOTHER GUN CONTROL THREAD
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 01-28-2013, 11:42 AM   #41
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
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 wants to prohibit legal ownership of the same type of weapons by law-abiding American citizens.
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 but thinks we shouldn't be able to purchase the same arms they GAVE AWAY.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-28-2013, 12:03 PM   #42
Xavier1985
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 67
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 it was originally made for local militias in times of war and what have you, then twisted into a more self defense stance and justification to have a "arsenal" of weapons..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.
Xavier1985 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-28-2013, 03:49 PM   #43
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1985 View Post
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. 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 which put a stop to new tax stamps being issued for firearms listed on the National Firearms Act of 1934(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. 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.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 01-28-2013 at 03:54 PM.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-28-2013, 05:21 PM   #44
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1985 View Post
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:
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.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-28-2013, 09:15 PM   #45
LDR
Your Death Angel
 
LDR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Malachor V
Posts: 1,141
Current Game: Halo: Master Chief Collection
Helpful! Roleplayer Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member 
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 here.



Forgive, but never forget. No amount of DLC can take back lying to your fan base. Trust is earned, not downloaded.



My Mods
Current Mod Thread
LDR is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-28-2013, 09:41 PM   #46
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
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.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-29-2013, 02:30 AM   #47
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
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.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-29-2013, 01:45 PM   #48
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-29-2013, 02:18 PM   #49
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
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.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-29-2013, 02:34 PM   #50
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
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.



Last edited by mimartin; 01-29-2013 at 06:04 PM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-29-2013, 07:11 PM   #51
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
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.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-29-2013, 10:14 PM   #52
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
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?


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-30-2013, 04:41 AM   #53
Xavier1985
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
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.
Xavier1985 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-30-2013, 06:08 AM   #54
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Intent to what, though? You're assuming that gun enthusiasts want to launch a revolution vs their govt?


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-30-2013, 11:59 AM   #55
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1985 View Post
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.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 01-30-2013 at 01:19 PM. Reason: realized I didn't respont to Xavier.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-30-2013, 12:41 PM   #56
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-30-2013, 06:27 PM   #57
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
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.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 01-30-2013 at 06:37 PM.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-30-2013, 06:56 PM   #58
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-31-2013, 05:57 AM   #59
Xavier1985
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
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.
Xavier1985 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-31-2013, 11:15 AM   #60
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
@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.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 01-31-2013 at 12:33 PM.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-31-2013, 01:18 PM   #61
Xavier1985
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 67
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.
Xavier1985 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-31-2013, 02:26 PM   #62
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1985 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1985 View Post
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.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-31-2013, 08:17 PM   #63
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
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.


Quote:
•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.
Quote:
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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-31-2013, 11:36 PM   #64
VeniVidiVicous
Rookie
 
VeniVidiVicous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
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 wants to prohibit legal ownership of the same type of weapons by law-abiding American citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
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 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?

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


VeniVidiVicous is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-01-2013, 12:49 AM   #65
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
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]


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker

Last edited by Q; 02-01-2013 at 12:57 AM.
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-01-2013, 01:03 AM   #66
VeniVidiVicous
Rookie
 
VeniVidiVicous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 170
@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.


VeniVidiVicous is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-01-2013, 01:26 AM   #67
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
The "gunwalking" originated on US soil.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-01-2013, 07:55 AM   #68
Xavier1985
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 67
@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.
Xavier1985 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-01-2013, 08:37 AM   #69
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
You're doing a wonderful job of living up to your stereotype.

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


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-01-2013, 09:26 AM   #70
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
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.



Last edited by mimartin; 02-01-2013 at 09:34 AM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-01-2013, 10:10 AM   #71
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
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?


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker

Last edited by Q; 02-01-2013 at 11:17 AM.
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-01-2013, 12:07 PM   #72
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1985 View Post
@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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1985 View Post
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.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-01-2013, 12:47 PM   #73
Astor
It's Thornhill!
 
Astor's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 3,632
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran Helpful! 
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1985 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1985
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1985
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1985
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.






Astor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-01-2013, 12:49 PM   #74
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
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?
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



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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-01-2013, 01:59 PM   #75
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
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.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-01-2013, 03:25 PM   #76
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
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.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker

Last edited by Q; 02-01-2013 at 04:05 PM.
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-01-2013, 04:33 PM   #77
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
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.



Last edited by mimartin; 02-01-2013 at 05:22 PM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-02-2013, 09:26 PM   #78
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
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 ), 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?


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2013, 12:11 AM   #79
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
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 ), 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2013, 12:23 AM   #80
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
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.
(Please don't get angry; the last thing I'd want to do is offend you.)


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker

Last edited by Q; 02-03-2013 at 12:44 AM.
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > Hot Topics > NOT ANOTHER GUN CONTROL THREAD

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:25 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.