gun show loophole rant
Quote: AZDuffmanI don't quite get this. You want murder to be legal? Why?
He is challenging absurdity with absurdity.
Quote: Gabes22He is challenging absurdity with absurdity.
He needs to learn how to do it better. Liberals really do not understand satire or humor.
Quote: AZDuffmanLiberals really do not understand satire or humor.
With comments like the above, I might start confusing you with Evenbob.
Quote: AZDuffmanHe needs to learn how to do it better. Liberals really do not understand satire or humor.
I agree. A clumsy attempt at satire on his part.
Quote: AZDuffmanHe needs to learn how to do it better. Liberals really do not understand satire or humor.
Its because they take everything soooooo seriously. Guns
and global warming and abortion and religion. Everything
is a crisis, there's no room for irony or humor.
Quote: s2dbakerWould you like to see weapons regulated in the same way that "completely legal" cigarettes are regulated?
Not in lock-step fashion, no. Of course not. But I would like lessons learned to be carried over.
What I want is for people to stop playing this game of throwing scenarios back and forth or comparing apples with oranges and look at the issue on its own. Let me give an example to illustrate my point.
The car comparison. This gets thrown out all the time. Cars are registered, and look at all the good it does. Guns should be the same. It'll give the same bonuses, right?
On the surface, sure, sounds like a good idea. But people don't think deeper. Look at your babies, s2dbaker. Knowing where you live, I bet you only pull them out from May to October, and I'd bet even that's a stretch. You probably only drive them on weekends to a show, or maybe for a cruise around town. I highly doubt you're commuting 10,000 miles a year in one. Maybe, what...100 - 1,000 miles a year? Even a 100 mile a year car is going to be observed and "qualified" a great number of times. Every cop you pass has a plate reader and your credentials are checked. In a year of commuting, our ability to drive is proofed hundreds if not thousands of times in this very fashion.
Guns are not the same. For example, I have a 20 gauge, bolt action Wards Westernfield. It's clean and lubed and ready to rock. Should the zombie apocolypse pop off, I need only ram some slugs home and go to war. This was my great-grandfather's gun, and hasn't seen the light of day in over 20 years. My Westernfield Slugster hasn't been out since 1996. How would these firearms be "qualified"?
By registering, you say? OK, my GLOCK is out all the time. It's been on the streets, what, 200 times in the last 365 days? And it's registered, licensed, the whole kit and kaboodle. How many times has IT been qualified? The answer - 0. I carry concealed, so not once has anyone stopped me to "check if I'm ok". Further, even if noticed, a cop can't just stop you for no reason and start taking weapons off your person. There's a video meme of this very scenario sweeping the web right now, and it won't fly.
There's not a way to qualify gun ownership in the same fashion as car ownership, so you can't apply the same conditions. The more you try, the worse this conversation gets. It's fine if one just wants to argue endlessly, but we all need to realize and understand the barriers if we want real change. That takes some critical thinking, which is in short supply on this topic.
Quote: AZDuffmanHe needs to learn how to do it better. Liberals really do not understand satire or humor.
Really?
Please.
You can be humourless drone regardless of your political allegiance. I've seen great satire and humour by all (and the current high ratings of Colbert Report and Daily Show suggest that mocking satire by liberal comedians sells, as does Rush Limbaugh's show for conservatives).
Quote: thecesspit
You can be humourless drone regardless of your political allegiance..
But Libs have a corner on the market. Everything
is a crisis, everything must be dealt with NOW.
Obama has been preaching doom and gloom
and catastrophe with this sequester thing for a
month, and last fall he was all for it. Said it
was big part of his plan. The sky is falling, the
sky is falling, thats their take on everything.
Laws against murder don't prevent all murders so why should we even try to regulate murder?Quote: AZDuffmanI don't quite get this. You want murder to be legal? Why?
Quote: s2dbakerLaws against murder don't prevent all murders so why should we even try to regulate murder?
Well, because murder is a crime against another person. There is nothing about murder that is not one person harming another. You cannot commit murder without hurting another person.
I think we have a breakthrough here. If something has no other purpose but to hurt another person, then it should be regulated.Quote: AZDuffmanWell, because murder is a crime against another person. There is nothing about murder that is not one person harming another. You cannot commit murder without hurting another person.
AZ and I agree on something, let the champagne flow!! But I'm still not going to kiss him!
Quote: s2dbakerI think we have a breakthrough here. If something has no other purpose but to hurt another person, then it should be regulated.
AZ and I agree on something, let the champagne flow!! But I'm still not going to kiss him!
I still don't get it. Murder is an act. A gun is a thing.
I can and have kept guns in my home for years without hurting anybody. It is impossible to commit murder without hurting someone.
How are they supposed to compare?
Quote: s2dbakerLaws against murder don't prevent all murders so why should we even try to regulate murder?
Because statement #1 is true; statement #2 is not.
1) ALL murder is bad.
2) ALL guns are bad.
Nice straw man you knocked down there. All murder is not bad, just ask an executioner. No one is talking about banning ALL guns, just the ones that have no other purpose than to efficiently kill large groups of people and the devices that enable them. I have to correct myself, they aren't even talking about banning those weapons, they merely want those weapons to no longer be sold. It would make it much more difficult for a loony to go out and buy a weapon at a gun show that within seconds, can murder dozens of people. If the loony already has the weapon then, well, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the splattered brains and sinew of school children".Quote: Beethoven9thBecause statement #1 is true; statement #2 is not.
1) ALL murder is bad.
2) ALL guns are bad.
Quote: s2dbakerNice straw man you knocked down there. All murder is not bad, just ask an executioner. No one is talking about banning ALL guns, just the ones that have no other purpose than to efficiently kill large groups of people and the devices that enable them. I have to correct myself, they aren't even talking about banning those weapons, they merely want those weapons to no longer be sold. It would make it much more difficult for a loony to go out and buy a weapon at a gun show that within seconds, can murder dozens of people. If the loony already has the weapon then, well, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the splattered brains and sinew of school children".
Actually plenty of people on the left would like to ban all guns. Eric Holder to name one. Obama is another though he knows to say so would be impolitic. And how many liberals stand up for total ban laws like Chicago and DC (overturned by Supremes).
Look how many think they need to be locked up with trigger locks even in a home with no kids.
Quote: s2dbakerNice straw man you knocked down there. All murder is not bad, just ask an executioner.
Straw man? FYI, executioners are not guilty of murder. And yes, ALL murder is bad.
Quote: s2dbakerNo one is talking about banning ALL guns, just the ones that have no other purpose than to efficiently kill large groups of people
So law-abiding citizens who are attacked by "large groups of people" will no longer have any means of defense. Nice.
And with that amazing bit of analysis, you have lost the debate.Quote: Beethoven9thSo law-abiding citizens who are attacked by "large groups of people" will no longer have any means of defense. Nice.
Quote: s2dbakerAnd with that amazing bit of analysis, you have lost the debate.
Oh, so you don't want to take away law-abiding citizens' means of defense against "large groups of people"? My mistake.
Quote: boymimbo500,000 guns are stolen every year from people's homes. So yeah, lock them up, especially when you're not at home.
I lock my house they are locked up.
And that's why you lost the debate. You don't know what you're talking about. Can you name even one instance of a law-abiding citizen being attacked by a large group of people where the law-abiding citizen saved himself by killing the large group of people? No, you can't because stuff like that doesn't happen.Quote: Beethoven9thOh, so you don't want to take away law-abiding citizens' means of defense against "large groups of people"? My mistake.
First, a large group of people would have no reason to attack a law-abiding citizen.
Second, let us presume that a large group of people would have reason to attack a law-abiding citizen. Wouldn't the mob also be similarly armed?
Third, let us presume that the mob is unarmed and attacking a law-abiding citizen. Wouldn't a single handgun be deterrent enough (not to mention much easier to wield and carry )?
At least AZ's straw men make a little sense. This logic is bordering on parody, something the Onion might write.
Quote: s2dbakerThis logic is bordering on parody, something the Onion might write.
First off, take a deep breath. You usually post short little blurbs on this thread, so I must have hit a nerve. Anyway, let's begin:
Quote: s2dbakerCan you name even one instance of a law-abiding citizen being attacked by a large group of people where the law-abiding citizen saved himself by killing the large group of people? No, you can't because stuff like that doesn't happen.
So I guess the Korean merchants who had to defend themselves during the 1992 LA riots must be a figment of my imagination? Even so, your point here is completely irrelevant. You want to talk about logic? I see no logic in: "X has never happened before, so X can never happen in the future."
Let me ask you, have you ever been hit by a car, broken every bone in your body, and put in intensive care? If not, does that mean such an event can never happen to you in the future?
Quote: s2dbakerFirst, a large group of people would have no reason to attack a law-abiding citizen.
Um...people have no good reason to attack any law-abiding citizen, period. But it still happens. Again, I don't see your point here.
Quote: s2dbakerWouldn't the mob also be similarly armed?
Talk about no logic. I don't understand the logic of the anti-gun crowd at all. Isn't this all the more reason why one should be armed?!? I want to encourage people to fight back against criminals. You want them to raise both hands in the air.
Quote: s2dbakerWouldn't a single handgun be deterrent enough (not to mention much easier to wield and carry )?
If you were being attacked by a mob, which weapon do you think would be more efficient in your defense, a Glock 22 or an AR-15? Enough said.
I don't think that I have the right to kill someone because they are breaking into my home. Burglars aren't interested in me -- they are interested in my property. Almost all murders are committed by people who know each other and for motive. The only person who I think has a motive to kill me is my ex-wife, and she would be the first suspect and would get caught, so I'm not worried about that.
So I don't buy the argument of self-defense at home, because I don't think I have the right to kill someone over property.... they should be arrested and punished accordingly (in my opinion). And I am careful not to create enemies who hate me enough (or loan sharks, or drug lords, or gang members, etc) to kill me. I've seen one gun in my life - the one owned by my wife, which I made sell when she moved to Canada with me.
And I live in Canada, a country that was created through peaceful means. I don't expect the war of 1812 to reenact itself anytime soon, and I also don't believe that my country is going to have an economic or political breakdown anytime soon. We're quite stable. Our government isn't corrupt. We don't fear that Stephen Harper is going to start a dictatorship or that Queen Elizabeth is going to declare marshal law. I don't anticipate my home being attacked by a mob, and it's illegal here (anywhere) to carry a concealed firearm. We're generally not paranoid.
Thou shalt not kill. But I am not here to judge others. That's just my opinion.
Quote: boymimbo
Thou shalt not kill. But I am not here to judge others. That's just my opinion.
No, you are just saying because you choose not to have a gun that nobody else "needs" to have one, either.
Yet, yes, I do believe there should be limitations on the type of weapon you should own. I think there should be restrictions, waiting periods, and criminal records check. I support strong laws that impose heavy penalties on those who don't follow the rules. I don't think you should be able to own a gun you can't handle or can only be used to kill someone else. Why? Because a large quantity of guns end up stolen in the hands of criminals or serial murderers. A large number of gun homocides are not used in defending crimes, but in killing oneselves or ex-loved ones.
Why do I believe the above? Because I believe that the combination of rules that Canada has put in place has had the effect of reducing gun crime, gun ownership, and murder, which only improves the quality of society (in my opinion). I don't know which rule or regulation resulted in the difference in murder rates? Or maybe it's just the person. Maybe we should conduct an experiement where we give 70% of all of the people in a city a handgun and see what happens to the homocide and major crime.rate.
Quote: boymimboOr maybe it's just the person.
That's what we've been trying to explain for the past 38 pages now.
Quote: Beethoven9thThat's what we've been trying to explain for the past 38 pages now.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, EH ?
It's a lot easier to get obese with chips in your cupboard than with vegetables in your fridge. It's alot easier to get drunk with beer in your house then with the bottle of Nyquil in your medicine cabinet. It's alot easier to kill someone with a gun then with a knife.... it's much more difficult to defend oneself against a bullet than with a blade.
Quote: boymimboIt's a hellalot easier to kill someone with a gun than with well, pretty much anything else.
Guess what? It's a helluva lot easier to defend yourself with a bullet than a blade.
Quote: boymimboIt's a lot easier to get obese with chips in your cupboard than with vegetables in your fridge. It's alot easier to get drunk with beer in your house then with the bottle of Nyquil in your medicine cabinet.
So by your logic, we should go back to prohibition and ban chips while we're at it.
Quote: boymimboit's much more difficult to defend oneself against a bullet than with a blade.
And it's much more difficult to defend oneself with a blade than a bullet.
Quote: Beethoven9thSo by your logic, we should go back to prohibition and ban chips while we're at it.
.
Speaking of prohibition. Prohibition has morphed into a conrtolled alcohol state.
People prefer laws & rules controlling access to troublesome items even if it doesn't work perfectly. Yeah, you can even put potato chips on that as they are trying to get them off school lunch programs.
Quote: rxwinePeople prefer laws & rules controlling access to troublesome items even if it doesn't work perfectly.
I find it troublesome that some people view self-defense tools as "troublesome".
Quote: rxwineYeah, you can even put potato chips on that as they are trying to get them off school lunch programs.
So you do support going back to prohibition and banning chips? Scary.
I support freedom, and I wish more of my fellow Americans did the same.
+1
Quote: Beethoven9th
So you do support going back to prohibition and banning chips? Scary.
I support freedom, and I wish more of my fellow Americans did the same.
No I said, people prefer controlling these items with rules and regulations.
People have started in on cellphones with their rules and regulations about where and how people use them. Except for some FCC regs, you were once free as a (free) bird to use them.
Cellphones don't shoot anyone. In fact they are paid for free speech.
Ask me which condition I prefer? I prefer the crackdown. People complain they're not hurting anyone blabbing endlessly. Fuck that. I prefer the quiet. If you want to conceal or unconceal carry your phone everywhere and blab in it, fuck that.
Now I didn't say you couldn't have and use a cellphone sometimes, and in some places.
Quote: rxwineNo I said, people prefer controlling these items with rules and regulations.
People have started in on cellphones with their rules and regulations about where and how people use them. Except for some FCC regs, you were once free as a (free) bird to use them.
And we have umpteen gun laws on the books already. What makes you think umpteen+1 will be the one that does the trick?
Quote: rxwineCellphones don't shoot anyone. In fact they are paid for free speech.
Free speech is the 1st Amendment. It's a shame that you don't interpret the 2nd Amendment as liberally as you interpret the 1st.
Quote: rxwineIf you want to conceal or unconceal carry your phone everywhere and blab in it, fuck that.
Now I didn't say you couldn't have and use a cellphone sometimes, and in some places.
Now you want to ban cell phone use in certain places?!? Man, you guys pretty much want to ban anything & everything that you don't agree with. *facepalm*
Quote: s2dbaker
First, a large group of people would have no reason to attack a law-abiding citizen.
This MUST be a joke! I believe the reason a gang attacks a law abiding citizen is usually to rob him or her. It may not be a legal reason, but it is clearly a reason.
Quote: boymimbo
I don't think that I have the right to kill someone because they are breaking into my home. Burglars aren't interested in me -- they are interested in my propertty.
So I don't buy the argument of self-defense at home, because I don't think I have the right to kill someone over property.... they should be arrested and punished accordingly (in my opinion)..
First of all, the intruder does not announce his exact intentions. The number of people beaten/raped/ killed will attest to that. The intruder doesn't say "Hold on! I'm just a burglar!!! I won't harm you!" I do not own a firearm, but would applaud anyone who does and uses it to extinguish a home invader. I know society is better off, because I can assure you no one who is successful at it does it only once....
Quote: Beethoven9thNow you want to ban cell phone use in certain places?!? Man, you guys pretty much want to ban anything & everything that you don't agree with. *facepalm*
The post office has as sign, asking to stop using cell phone once you go to the window.
Movies theaters want you to not use them, because idiots don't know any better.
Classrooms ban them as disruption or even cheating.
Please turn off your cell phone -- they'll be more places. I'll probably think of more later.
Why is this a surprise to you?
Quote: rxwineThe post office has as sign, asking to stop using cell phone once you go to the window.
Movies theaters want you to not use them, because idiots don't know any better.
Classrooms ban them as disruption or even cheating.
Please turn off your cell phone -- they'll be more places. I'll probably think of more later.
Why is this a surprise to you?
Um...none of those are criminal violations. In other words, you will not get arrested and prosecuted for using a cell phone in a movie theater or the post office. Is this a surprise to you?
Quote: Beethoven9thUm...none of those are criminal violations. In other words, you will not get arrested and prosecuted for using a cell phone in a movie theater or the post office. Is this a surprise to you?
I said people prefer rules and laws on troublesome items in my post.
edit: rules and regulations.
Quote: Beethoven9thSo you support "rules" but not "laws" banning cell phones? (If you don't support laws banning cell phones--the way you support laws banning guns--then I'm not sure why you even brought cell phones up)
I support laws when rules aren't enough.
Your mention of Prohibition reminded me that we didn't just end up in a alcohol free-for-all in the long run, that we've ended up in a regulated alcohol state. By both rules and laws, Also see ATF (Alcohol, T& F)
Quote: SOOPOOAs someone who took care of three separate gunshot victims through the night, I am still for people's rights to keep them. I was bemoaning my bad fortune at being up most of the night to an ex lady friend, a quite petite woman. She told me she keeps a gun in her home for personal protection, and even though she understands the likelihood of her being able to get to it and use it in the event of a break in is slim, she still feels better about having it.
But the likelihood of getting to it is greater than the 0% chance of success if she didn't have it.
Training in the proper defensive use of her gun, situational awareness and tactics can increase her odds of prevailing in a fight.
Quote: SOOPOOFirst of all, the intruder does not announce his exact intentions. The number of people beaten/raped/ killed will attest to that. The intruder doesn't say "Hold on! I'm just a burglar!!! I won't harm you!" I do not own a firearm, but would applaud anyone who does and uses it to extinguish a home invader.
Like Oscar Pistorius?
"...we have umpteen gun laws on the books already. What makes you think umpteen+1 will be the one that does the trick?"
Quote: Beethoven9thOK, then let me repeat a question from a previous post that you never answered. I said:
"...we have umpteen gun laws on the books already. What makes you think umpteen+1 will be the one that does the trick?"
We've tried lots of failed drugs to treat and cure various things, why would the next one do the trick? Has that ever worked? We need to give up. [sarcasm]
In any case, there are no laws that force companies to find cures for various ailments. And if there were, they wouldn't solve the problem. Just like more gun laws won't solve the problem. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.
[BTW, history has shown that we have in fact beaten many diseases (i.e. polio, smallpox, etc). So yes, the next one did do the trick in those cases. Not so with guns.]
Quote: Beethoven9thNice dodge.
In any case, there are no laws that force companies to find cures for various ailments. And if there were, they wouldn't solve the problem. Just like more gun laws won't solve the problem. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.
[BTW, history has shown that we have in fact beaten many diseases (i.e. polio, smallpox, etc). So yes, the next one did do the trick in those cases]
Yes, exactly. Why did you think it was a dodge. Laws are tweaked, removed, retried in modified forms.
Just saying gun ban (or drug) didn't work, means nothing. The devil is in the details of the law, whether it's suitable for broad or narrow applications. It may be very similar or not to other laws.
Likewise, unlike say getting a bad baby crib off the market, there's been an active movement to disembowel all gun legislation.
