cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
At least he's housebroken. cn
How would you control guns?
- Thread starter lifegoesonbrah
- Start date
canndo
Well-Known Member
Background checks? seems foolish on it's face.
Registration? a very very good idea except that in my belief it is unconstitutional and violates a citizen's right to privacy, furthermore it would lend power to a government that would enable them to strip a society of its weapons in the easiest way possible.
Limiting types of weapons? sure, limiting which ones? Big ones? little concealable ones? Popular ones? scary ones?
Limiting magazine sizes? I am behind that one but all it may ever do is slow the rate of carnage and that doesn't seem to be enough for our gun toting friends who hold that if a law isn't 100 percent effective there is no reason to enact it at all.
Gun free zones? Now isn't this a matter of personal right? I think it is interesting that the right is upset when the government wants to instill it's laws in religious settings - if a religious institution doesn't want to support abortion then no government should force it to do so, but this statement presupposes that government might insist that individuals be allowed to carry their weapons into churches regardless of the churche's stance on firearms on their premsisis.
Make all dangerous weapons illegal - well why not - that is the cure righ there. now all we have to do is define what a "dangerous weapon" is.
Limit amunition? sure! Now how. I have always had a problem making quantity a defining characteristic of legality. In other words, how can the posession of one bullet be legal but the posession of 20 not be? This goes to the issue of pseudoephedrin. Why is the purchase of two boxes of something legal ok but the purchase of 5 boxes of the same thing illegal?
Other? yes, there is the other, there must be something that will serve to inhibit mass shootings through some sort of law or combination of laws.
Registration? a very very good idea except that in my belief it is unconstitutional and violates a citizen's right to privacy, furthermore it would lend power to a government that would enable them to strip a society of its weapons in the easiest way possible.
Limiting types of weapons? sure, limiting which ones? Big ones? little concealable ones? Popular ones? scary ones?
Limiting magazine sizes? I am behind that one but all it may ever do is slow the rate of carnage and that doesn't seem to be enough for our gun toting friends who hold that if a law isn't 100 percent effective there is no reason to enact it at all.
Gun free zones? Now isn't this a matter of personal right? I think it is interesting that the right is upset when the government wants to instill it's laws in religious settings - if a religious institution doesn't want to support abortion then no government should force it to do so, but this statement presupposes that government might insist that individuals be allowed to carry their weapons into churches regardless of the churche's stance on firearms on their premsisis.
Make all dangerous weapons illegal - well why not - that is the cure righ there. now all we have to do is define what a "dangerous weapon" is.
Limit amunition? sure! Now how. I have always had a problem making quantity a defining characteristic of legality. In other words, how can the posession of one bullet be legal but the posession of 20 not be? This goes to the issue of pseudoephedrin. Why is the purchase of two boxes of something legal ok but the purchase of 5 boxes of the same thing illegal?
Other? yes, there is the other, there must be something that will serve to inhibit mass shootings through some sort of law or combination of laws.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
You know, I think you would be much happier in North Korea. They have free universal healthcare, no guns outside of the military and everybody agrees on everything.
BadDog40
Well-Known Member
Good job for being a right wing parrot. Of course stupid people don't realize its bullshit.
Breitbarts article intentionally takes one specific weapon, rifles, and dishonestly compares it to dozens of weapons; the FBI stats for blunt objects do not differentiate between hammers, clubs, tire irons, nunchuks, bricks, crowbars, baseball bats, beer bottles, billy clubs, poles, cinderblocks, irons, and dozens of other weapons that are used to bludgeon people or bash their brains out. It also conveniently leaves out every other type of gun murder.
A true comparison shows guns are responsible for more deaths than all other weapons combined.
Here is the Breitbart article http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...an-With-Rifles
Here are the actual FBI stats http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...-data-table-11
Here are the facts; In America in 2011, 8583 people were murdered by one type of weapon, guns (an additional 18,000 + committed suicide with firearms). Less than half that amount, 4,081 were killed by every other weapon known to man including knives, blunt objects, poison, fire, pushing out a window, cars, hands, explosions, drowning, narcotics, strangulation, asphyxiation and the mysterious "other" category.
The truth is, the probability of being murdered by a gun in America is double that of being killed by any other weapon or method available to humankind...combined.
oldtimer54
Well-Known Member
Desert Dude you are my Freaking hero!
tumorhead
Well-Known Member
I would require collateral, or even allow a bond like I had to pay for when I had a general contractor license.
Then if you're careless and leave your gun somewhere it gets stolen and used in a crime you lose whatever you put up for collateral/bond. But with collateral I wouldn't give a fuck what kinda gun you wanna buy, if it's used in a crime you're on the hook, so take care of it.
And if you're some degenerate with nothing of value in your life you shouldn't get one.
Then if you're careless and leave your gun somewhere it gets stolen and used in a crime you lose whatever you put up for collateral/bond. But with collateral I wouldn't give a fuck what kinda gun you wanna buy, if it's used in a crime you're on the hook, so take care of it.
And if you're some degenerate with nothing of value in your life you shouldn't get one.
Figong
Well-Known Member
The only thing we need is a well-armed society, paranoia of wondering 'is that person armed?' will prevent quite a few crimes, and stop others. As for schools, 4 military vets w/full background and psych check fully armed, w/full body armor would be quite nice. Pick a door and guard it. 
Figong
Well-Known Member
Ok, have to ask.. and this could very well be inflammatory and seem as if I'm looking to start a fight, but it's not - I have a need to try to understand the fucked up logic of the 2 retards that voted for gun-free zones? The reason I ask.. if one is willing to obtain a gun illegally, hellbent on killing people.. do you think they will say "Oh, there's a 36-06 sign, perhaps I should not bring my gun in there and kill people." ? Honestly?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Ok clearly you and I both know why selling people large quantities of pseudoephedrine over the counter is a really bad idea.
BadDog40
Well-Known Member
The logic behind gun free zones is that unstable people such as yourself don't legally bring a gun into such a place like a school, and get into an argument about how great FOX News is and lose your temper and pull out your gun. Is that so difficult to comprehend? Half the population has an IQ below average and almost 30% believe god determines the outcome of sporting events, yea, I trust these idiots to keep control of themselves.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
and if they make less than $___________________ per year, they dont deserve the rights secured by the constitution, or the privilege of self defense against an attacker.
please fill in the blank.
im guessing it's exactly the amount earned by your lowest wage friend or loved one.
why do you find it so hard to stand up for what you believe in and just say how much more money than a "McDonalds Fry Maker" earns, is required to gain access the rights promised in the constitution?
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I've been thinking real hard lately about this and the threads like it. My gun is already my bitch, I don't see the problem.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I think the problem is the difference between intent and outcome. The intent is to create a safer locale. The outcome is to create a locale in which armed response will be slow unless someone in uniform is on guard duty (expensive, boring, not 100% reliable).
The other problem is selective enforcement. A gun-free zone should by definition be a cop-free zone as long as cops carry guns. And never forget that cops are civilians and do not merit the Constitutional protections and strictures granted to/imposed upon the military. The exemption is corrupt. cn
Figong
Well-Known Member
What's difficult to comprehend is that you label me as unstable when you know nothing of me. That said, you obviously have no idea how a 'gun-free' zone works, or you wouldn't have said "The logic behind gun free zones is that unstable people such as yourself don't legally bring a gun into such a place like a school, and get into an argument about how great FOX News is and lose your temper and pull out your gun." If a school is posted as being 'gun-free' ... per Michigan state law..(as an example) it's officially a gun-free zone, which law abiding carriers will honor, and respect. Any who do not care whatsoever, and are ready to murder a good amount of people, (see: Sandy Hook) would just let the rounds fly... oh wait, that doesn't happen, the 'gun-free' zone stopped Sandy Hook - I stand corrected.
IQ and whether God determines sporting events has zero relevance in this discussion, unless you truly believe that a 'sub-standard' IQ would actually keep the populace more 'safe' than it would be otherwise.
budlover13
King Tut
So, how many shootings result from that situation in NON gun free zones? Not too many. I would bet WAY fewer than murders in so-called gun free zones.
budlover13
King Tut
Mine are my babies. Care for them and they'll take care for you.
BadDog40
Well-Known Member
You're saying a majority of the 10,000 people killed every year were in gun free zones? Are you fucking kidding?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
they also talk about assault trees (red1966) and eventually being forced to defend themselves with spoons (kelly4).
these people are not rational. they are, in short, goddamn idiots.